Re: [regrep] ebXML and UN/CEFACT - Request for Clarification

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Thanks Kathryn. I'm still not sure what the press release means in
regard to submission to the UN/CEFACT plenary (i.e. what are the
implications). Jamie Clark states:

<Quote>
CEFACT then asked OASIS to agree to make the first submission to 
CEFACT's own UN/ECE recommendation process in May 2003.  OASIS 
agreed.   (This is what the press release mentions.)
</Quote>

And the press release stated:

<Quote>
We are very pleased that the ebXML specifications will be submitted to
the UN/CEFACT plenary immediately following the ebXML Showcase. This
should pave the way for a UN recommendation to industry, commerce and
governments on the use of ebXML."
</Quote>

These really say the same thing...but what is the true meaning of both
one level deeper?

Thanks,
Joe
"Breininger, Kathryn R" wrote:
> 
> Here is what I learned:
> 
> From Karl:
> Talk about the submission has been going on for quite some time, all the
> way back to Vienna or earlier. I sent to the ebXML chairs some months
> ago of summary of where we were with the process and asked for comments,
> and got no response.
> 
> As to ISO rejecting the specs, the story goes more or less like this:
> the ebXML JCC (CEFACT and OASIS reps) discussed last summer and fall
> submitting the ebXML specs to ISO, probably TC154. In December a member
> of the ISO Central Secretariat approached Ray Walker and I at a meeting
> to ask where we were with the decision, and given that we were somewhat
> close to deciding Ray and I offered to put together a draft submission,
> which we did. ISO, not realizing that it was just a draft and that the
> decision hadn't been finalized yet, ran with the submission and opened
> up a ballot at TC154 to approve the specs. The ebXML JCC asked ISO to
> withdraw the ballot as we had not made the final decision as to
> where/when to submit. ISO withdrew the ballot as we requested. I don't
> know if TC154 actually voted down the ballot, but shouldn't have as it
> was withdrawn part-way through the balloting period. Jamie can fill you
> in on how the decision is going on where/when to finally submit, as I'm
> not on the JCC any more.
> 
> -Karl
> 
> From Jamie Clark:
> Good afternoon all.  Karl's got the history exactly right.  Here's the
> explanation I use, in case it's helpful:
>      One ISO subcommittee launched a ballot about ebXML standards before
> getting approval from the owners of the standards (CEFACT and OASIS).
>      When we heard, we jointly asked the ISO central secretariat to
> withdraw it, so that the proper process could be completed first.  They
> did.  Perhaps the TC voted to acknowledge this, but we didn't do a press
> release because nothing happened.
>      CEFACT then asked OASIS to agree to make the first submission to
> CEFACT's own UN/ECE recommendation process in May 2003.  OASIS
> agreed.   (This is what the press release mentions.)
>      After May, the joint OASIS-CEFACT coordinating committee will turn
> back to the question of what other approvals should be pursued, and in what
> order.  ISO is still on the table and there are lots of other suggestions
> from our community as well.
> 
> Regards    Jamie
> 
> Hope that helps clarify!
> Kathryn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Breininger, Kathryn R
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:34 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph; Monica J. Martin; farrukh.najmi@sun.com; ebXML
> Regrep (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [regrep] ebXML and UN/CEFACT - Request for Clarification
> 
> No, I have not heard anymore about the ISO submission, not had I heard about the UN/CEFACT submission.  I will check on these and get back to you.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:12 AM
> To: Monica J. Martin; farrukh.najmi@sun.com; Breininger, Kathryn R
> Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML and UN/CEFACT - Request for Clarification
> 
> Kathryn,
> 
> Adding you to this thread - I had asked you a question below (regarding
> ISO 154 rejection), but did not realize that this became a private
> thread (I'm used to just hitting "Reply All"). I also think that this
> should be discussed on the listserv, per our open policy.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Joseph Chiusano wrote:
> >
> > I think we're talking about two different things here:
> >
> > (1) Submission of ebXML specifications to UN/CEFACT
> > (2) Submission of ebXML Registry specifications to ISO (?)
> >
> > My original message was regarding (1), as I don't believe there is any
> > reference to ISO below.
> >
> > Since you mention ISO, I assume this is the submission of the ebXML
> > Registry specifications as noted in (2) above. If so, this is the first
> > I've heard of the rejection.
> >
> > Kathryn - would you happen to have more info on the ISO issue?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
> >
> > "Monica J. Martin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Was submitted to ISO TC 154 and then denied.
> > >
> > > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Monica. Would anyone have insight as to what "put forward" (first
> > > > line of Ralph Berwanger's quote below) means?
> > > >
> > > > "Monica J. Martin" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI.
> > > > >
> > > > > For everyone as appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ralph Berwanger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that the following documents are being put forward.  I
> > > > > > believe they are the same documents that were orignally put forward to
> > > > > > TC 154.  The documents are: Technical Architecture (TA) V1.04, Business
> > > > > > Process Specification Schema (BPSS) V1.01, Registry Information Model
> > > > > > (RIM) V2.0, Registry services specification (RS) V2.0, ebXML requirements
> > > > > > (REQ) V1.06, Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement specification
> > > > > > (CPPA) V2.0, Message Service Specification (MS) V2.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ralph Berwanger
> > > > >
> > > > > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On the main OASIS page, there is a news item titled "OASIS and UN/CEFACT
> > > > > > to Host ebXML Showcase at XML Europe 2003 in London" (dated 3/27/03). In
> > > > > > that article, Ray Walker (chair of the UN/CEFACT Steering Group) states:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote>
> > > > > > "We are very pleased that the ebXML specifications will be submitted to
> > > > > > the UN/CEFACT plenary immediately following the ebXML Showcase. This
> > > > > > should pave the way for a UN recommendation to industry, commerce and
> > > > > > governments on the use of ebXML."
> > > > > > </Quote>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone have more insight into this - i.e. which ebXML
> > > > > > specifications, what it means to have them submitted to the UN/CEFACT
> > > > > > plenary, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > > Joe
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard