Jamie's number (2) approach "approve a small-scale technical-changes only group project fro 1.1, which explicitly excludes material changes to models and objects." so that "the substantive groups -- monitored commitments, BSI, etc. -- work the big picture issues with their domain-specific experts
for a while, before getting into a pitched discussion of what 2.0 should be." really makes the most logical sense.
That's where my vote goes.
-Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:52 AM
> To: 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok';
> Cc: ; ;
> ;
> Subject: RE: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams
>
>
> Klaus,
>
> Either works for me. From my view there are two issues:
> 1. An updated Schema XSD to reflect changes in the in final
> TR version. The
> ebXML web site still has an earlier version that has since
> been corrected
> and posted to the BPSS list.
> 2. Changes to resolve the minor ambiguities in the spec with
> respect to the
> use of isPositiveResponse.
>
> I think both could be considered editorial.
>
> Best Regards,
> ________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Kanaskie
> Lucent Technologies
>
> (610) 778-1069
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 2:36 PM
> To:
> Cc: ; ;
> ;
> Subject: Re: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams
>
> On Friday 24 August 2001 11:24, James Bryce Clark wrote:
>
> > So I suggest that we either (1) have no BPSS group (leaving
> > technical changes to editors appointed by ebTWG exec, whatever it
> > is), or (2) approve a small-scale technical-changes only group
> > project fro 1.1, which explicitly excludes material changes to
> > models and objects. In other words, do what CPPA is doing, and
> > put out a good, stable 1.1 which simply fixes any holes in 1.0.
> > Let the substantive groups -- monitored commitments, BSI, etc.
> > -- work the big picture issues with their domain-specific experts
> > for a while, before getting into a pitched discussion of what 2.0
> > should be.
>
> Jamie,
>
> Thanks for your recap on this topic. I would support option 2 as
> being a valid one with the conditions identified by you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Klaus
>
> --
> Klaus-Dieter Naujok UN/CEFACT/eBTWG & TMWG Chair
> IONA Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Scientific Officer
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
