There is no question that section 9 can easily give the impression that
ebXML is
significantly tied to EDI, which could easily increase the buy-in barrier
and
result in limited success.
If we had to vote, I say remove it.
If we have to compromise, reference it in one short paragraph and move on.
>Remember that ebXML is designed to reach the SMEs that EDI wasn't
appropriate for.
Well put.
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
[email protected], Fax: 512-838-1074
Jeff Suttor <[email protected]> on 10/16/2000 04:36:36 PM
Please respond to Jeff Suttor <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: re: ebXML TA: removing Section 9.0, Open-edi
>From the point of view of BOV and FSV we do need to explain where this
>comes from.
>We cannot just launch into this from out of nowhere.
>
>BOV and FSV is unknown to most people. 'Wasting' one page on setting the
>scene is a small price here.
I think that Sections 10, 11 and 12 cover BOV & FSV adequately.
>I say we keep it in. Many, many, many more people than the in-group
>building this
>are going to read this document. We owe it to them to make it flow
>coherently.
I think prominently covering Open-edi will be more confusing if the reader
is in
an ebXML mind set. Remember that ebXML is designed to reach the SMEs that
EDI
wasn't appropriate for.
--
[email protected] http://sun.com/xml
XML Technology Center http://web.eng/xml
