AW: [wg11] Re: Choice of exploder

[Ungerer, Max]

Ed,

I completely agree with you. 

The technical contents of Part28 v2 as it is comes from requirements people had and brought in during the development of Part28 under the umbrella of WG11.

Part28 v2 satisfies requirements from he automotive industry originating from our experiences with implementing XML based Web services in the PDTnet project and from harvesting AP214 as OMG PLM Services.

Further discussions should be made as part of the balloting process. 

Best regards,

Max
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: wg11-bounces at steptools.com 
> [mailto:wg11-bounces at steptools.com] Im Auftrag von Ed Barkmeyer
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Juni 2004 19:26
> An: xmlsc4 at nist.gov; SC4 WG11
> Betreff: [wg11] Re: Choice of exploder
> 
> Gerry Radack wrote:
> 
> > Could we have this discussion on a *single* exploder?  
>  > Cross-posting to multiple exploders does not work very well.
>  > A lot of exploders reject messages posted by people who 
> are not  > members.
> 
> thanks to the spammers.
> 
> As for useful international discussion of this topic, it sure 
> would have been nice to have this discussion after Heidi 
> posted previous working drafts last August and November.  As 
> of 30 April, ISO CD 10303-28.2 is out for ballot.  This 
> discussion can no longer lead to any result that doesn't show 
> up in a National Body comment.
> 
> This is not a WG3 work item.  I have no current interest in 
> WG3 work items, and I will not subscribe to that exploder.  
> This is a WG11 work item, and the entire technical scope of 
> the standard relates only to
> WG11 concerns.  That logic would lead to discussion on the WG11
> exploder: wg11 at steptools.com.
> 
> All previous technical work on Part 28 (v1 and v2) was 
> discussed on xmlsc4 at nist.gov, but this work item is no longer 
> in technical development.  We are now (finally?) discussing 
> REQUIREMENTS for v2 that arise from the larger SC4 community. 
>  That is why I think the WG11 exploder is more appropriate.
> 
> My national body has an email exploder for U.S. comments on Part 28.
> Those of us who are U.S.-based should probably take our 
> discussion there.  (We only have until the end of next week 
> to formulate a ballot
> position.)  Other NBs might also find it useful to adopt a 
> similar approach.
> 
> [OBTW, the "xmlsc4 at nist.gov" exploder kindly erases all cc's 
> so that ReplyAll to an xmlsc4 message only goes to the xmlsc4 
> exploder, just as Reply (to the author only) also goes to the 
> exploder.  This is a "feature" of NIST exploders, approved by 
> our CIO Council, so that staff don't get redundant messages. ;-)]
> 
> -Ed
> 
> -- 
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark at nist.gov
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8264                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8264                FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> 
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>   and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wg11 mailing list
> wg11 at steptools.com
> http://lists.steptools.com/mailman/listinfo/wg11
> 
>