John,
Yes - that would be good. Wednesday will
work.
Thanks, DW.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:57
AM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity -
WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review
+1
Tony is dead-on here - there is no single
organization that can assist us in our efforts. We may decide to adopt
useful ideas/practices from CEFACT, W3C, BCM, OMG or others. We also can
vote that none of the targeted liaison will be helpful and go it alone.
A liaison is not a competition.
David - we should discuss formalizing the
BCM liaison and submitting it to the TC for a vote. I would like to add
this to the agenda for next week - can you be on the call to discuss
BCM?
Thanks!
John Evdemon
From: Fletcher, Tony
[mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com] Sent: Wed 9/24/2003 4:56
AM To: Sid Askary; Diane Jordan Cc: BPEL
OASIS Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT
Liaison Review
Dear
Diane, Sid, David and others,
The
bottom line for me is that I do not think we need to see liaisons as in any
way competitive with each other, so I do not see a need to set 'priorities' in
this respect. If we had a large number of liaisons or they were taking a
large chunk of the TC's bandwidth then that would be different, but we are by
no means at that stage.
So I
think it is a question of AND rather than OR. I plead that those charged
with doing liaison are allowed to quietly get on with the
job.
Best
Regards,
Tony
|
Tony
Fletcher
Technical
Advisor
Choreology
Ltd. 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J
UK |
Phone: |
+44 (0) 870
7390076 |
Mobile: |
+44 (0) 7801
948219 |
Fax: |
+44 (0) 870
7390077 |
Web: |
www.choreology.com |
Cohesions™ |
Business
transaction management software for application
coordination |
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
|
Home: amfletcher@iee.org |
Diane,
I appreciate your
unbiased approach and for clarification on the process regarding the liaison
activity. I was attempting to respond to a question posted by
Frank. For some reason, the good professor's email was not included in
the chain (a common occurrence given the lack of temporal precedence in an
asynchronous means of communication). Included below for
clarity:
..... ...and in addition, what is the difference
between liason and
observer? Tx...
Regards, Frank .......
I was under
the impression that he was curious as to our understanding of the two
terms. I simply offered mine.
Now, to the topic at hand.
Since we now know about how the process is suppose to work, can we put it to
use? I, too, would like for us to visit our liaison activity and
decide as group. Further, I have posted my concerns on a response to
our good friend Tony. I am also including them here for
clarity:
------- Dear Tony,
Thank you for your kind
clarification. I was indeed referring to the working groups - and not
the specifications themselves. I also appreciate that you offer your
statement of support for our W3C liaison activity - although I did not
question that activity. Further, my general point was not so much that
we would benefit from such an activity (any benefit, I hope, would be mutual
to both organizations), rather, I was referring to our W3C liaison activity
as building a case for what we could consider relevant - on the "degree of
relevance" scale - to the task at hand. I also appreciate your
insight for anticipating the need for liaison activity with future BPSS
activities. And it is precisely, in light of current announcement,
that our liaison activities are the topic of discussion.
Additionally, you cite UN/CEFACT as representing a "wealth of
experience in business matters". Again, that organization's
credentials is not the topic of discussion - I have had direct contact with
many competent individuals who were/are participants and I hold them in high
regard. Rather, it is the "degree of relevance" and a matter of
"priorities" given the early stages of our TC. Let me use an
analogy. Imagine that we are witness to the early stages of an
effort. A group of auto manufacturers and designers have come together
to specify a common description of "Engine Building" (with all due respect
to colleagues at AIAG). Other "Engine Building" organizations - maybe
aircraft - would qualify as having pertinent input into the common language,
as they are in the business of building engines as well.
So,
the original "car Engine" team establishes a liaison with the "aircraft
Engine" group (they already have something similar going on with submarine
builders who are also working on submersible "Engine Building"
specification). While still in the early stages of their work,
at some point in near future, the "aircraft engine" manufactures decide to
abandon work on "Engine Building" specification and concentrate on a
different area - let's say "interior cabin" design specification.
Almost simultaneously, a group of "jet engine" designers who had worked on
that original "Aircraft Engine" specification wants to continue the work
on "Engine Building" specification under a boat builders association (not to
mention the fact that boat and the auto team are sister organizations
belonging to a parent builder association).
For car "Engine Building" specification team, WHICH ORGANIZATION
should have priority in terms of visibility and mutual cooperation - given
the problem domain and expertise and organizational affiliation: The
boat "Engine Building" spec team or the aircraft "Interior Cabin" spec
team? One is either in the business of creating "Engine
Building" specification, or is an end user of such specification - not
direct participants via liaison. Therefore, it stands to reason that
by their very nature, end user organizations are deemed less relevant for
the IMMIDIATE task at hand and are lower on the chronological priority list
(one would hope) of those from whom one wishes to solicit input and
cooperation. When, as a TC, we are close to
the finish line, we could revisit the end user direct liaison issue,
perhaps, in a marketing sub-group. To be sure, there are
precedents where other organizations abandon an effort in favor of
supporting another - towards the completion cycle - and generally, such
gestures are delivered through the parent organization (i.e. Rosettanet in
case of OASIS).
Lastly, to further the analogy, there
are still more relevant groups and consortia in the "Building Engine"
specification arena (i.e. B_ig P_arts M_anufacturer I_nstitute) with which
one could consider liaison activity in order to further enhance the work
product.
In fact, it it common practice to re-visit these "Relations"
as unforeseen events occur. I think, as a TC, we need to revisit our
liaison priorities, given the recent changes.
Regards, Sid
Askary -----
|