re UN/CEFACT users:
We acknowledged that there are two user groups which can be served by offering UN/CEFACT semantics for re-use, each with very different profiles with respect to the way they approach API development.
⦁	A first group is centred around a classical use case of multilateral communication using a document oriented approach
⦁	This group would like to develop APIs based on JSON schema which are an alternative publication format to XML schema based on BRSes
⦁	A second group would like to re-use standard definitions and vocabulary where possible (as an alternative to inventing semantics independently). 
⦁	This group is more concerned with rapid development and iteration and prefers an a-la-carte approach ... potentially re-using only a handful of data elements ... for these users the motivation is not there to get deep into UN/CEFACT Methodology or business requirements specifications as a pre-requisite for re-use. It’s not realistic to get these users to perform deep study in order to reuse vocabulary definitions.
Both user groups are important and have valid ways of working within their respective contexts. 

Some time ago we embarked upon a journey to serve both groups. 

Relationship between the two projects:
API Technical Specification Project will deliver:
•	JSON Naming and Design Rules TS
•	Open API Naming and Design Rules TS
•	A JSON schema export artefact

Whereas the JSON-LD Vocabulary project will be able to generate a JSON-LD Vocabulary from the JSON export of the API Technical Specification Project; we need to confirm with Nis that the JSON-LD vocabulary project will be focused on re-use of Buy-Ship-Pay model

Resources will need to be invested to achieve a sustainable publication process for existing and new deliverables

One possible direction to explore could be to to decentralize the maintenance and publication process in which each domain could publish its own vocabulary (more work needed)

The question was raised whether APIs created based on JSON-LD vocabulary would be compatible with APIs created using the standardized API process specified by the API Technical Specification Project. It seems the answer is no, it’s unclear what the hypothetical use case or user where this becomes a concern? 

The Town Plan Project will address:
•	Distinguishing UN/CEFACT Standard APIs (JSON) from other APIs using UN/CEFACT semantic standards (JSON-LD)
•	Two categories of compliance vis-a-vis the above
•	A mapping of business areas and API resources
•	Publishing and maintenance procedures