BP/Core,
I like Bob Miller's wording. Filling in the abbreviations, and substituting
using some text suggested by Bill McCarthy, here is what it would look like:
(There was also a suggestion by Bob Haugen to drop the last paragraph, I would
like to hear votes pro/con on that)
Executive Summary:
The ebXML Specification Schema provides a standard framework by which
business systems may be configured to support execution of business
transactions. It is based upon prior UN/CEFACT work, specifically the
UN/CEFACT Unified Modeling Methodology (UMM) defined in the N90 specification.
The current version of the specification schema facilitates the
infrastructure release of ebXML's Transport/Routing/Packaging (TRP), Trading
Partner (TP), and Registry/Repository (RegRep) specifications.
A subsequent version will address additional desired(required?) features
such as the semantics of economic exchanges and contracts, multi-party
choreography, and context based content.
>Hi All,
>
>In my opinion, the first sentence alone would cause most executives to stop
>reading!
>It is littered with acronyms and somewhat sophisticated technical jargon.
>
>Here is my attempt for your consideration:
> (NOTE: "..." is to be filled in with readable text defining the following
>acronym)
>
>Executive Summary:
>
>The ebXML Specification Schema provides a standard framework by which
>business systems may be configured to support execution of business
>transactions. It is based upon prior UN/CEFACT work, specifically the
>...(UMM) defined in ...
>
>The current version of the specification schema facilitates the
>infrastructure release of ebXML's ...(TRP), ...(TP), and ...(RegRep)
>specifications.
>
>A subsequent version will address additional desired(required?) features
>such as Resources/Events/Agents, multi-party choreography, and context
>based content.
>
>Cheers,
> Bob Miller
