Brian, David,
I concur with Jeff.
I think that the BOV and FSV may be now expressed in some way by the TPA (am I right, Scott ?). But even if not, I do not see any added value in making a whole chapter on this. I mean, if some concepts are useful, let's use them without tracing their roots (or trace the roots as a footnote).
What I retained from that chapter is that the BOV and FSV is about the distinction between Bsuiness related and Technical related information. Am I wrong ?
/Stefano
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Eisenberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 11:38 PM
> To: 'David RR Webber'; Jeff Suttor
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: ebXML TA: removing Section 9.0, Open-edi
>
>
> I have to agree with David on this one. The BOV and FSV concepts are used
> quite extensively in the BP Collaboration Modeling Metamodel and
> UML Profile
> document.
>
> --Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 2:24 PM
> To: Jeff Suttor
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: re: ebXML TA: removing Section 9.0, Open-edi
>
>
> Message text written by Jeff Suttor
> >
> I recomend that we remove Section 9.0, Open-edi.
>
> This is an ebXML arch doc, it just seems out of place to devote so much
> upfront
> presentation to Open-edi.
>
> >From: Brian Eisenberg <[email protected]>
> >We use the open-edi section to set the stage for the discussion that
> >explains the ebXML architecture in terms of the BOV and FSV. This section
> >also provides some background discussion on how ebXML differs (and draws
> >upon the successes/failures) of past edi efforts.
>
> Section 10.0 ebXML Architecture already starts out with the BOV & FSV. Do
> they
> need to cover more?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Jeff,
>
> I considered this too - early on, but decided it should stay.
>
> 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 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.
>
> Thanks, DW.
>
