Comments on 0.4 document

["agrangard@nycall.com" <anders.grangard@edifrance.org>]

As agreed at our conference call yesterday, I give my comments on the
documents. I hope I am not nitpicking to badly.

Architecture 0.4:

A1. Multi-Lingualism is not mentioned in the document. It is mentioned at
least twice in 1.5 of the requirements document.
A2. Some textual information given in 0.8 was very useful to understand the
overview picture. This should be reintroduced into the 0.4.
A3. Generally the bullet points need to be further explained once the power
point is converted into a document.
A4. On the page titled 'Special considerations' I believe that we should
mention something about the ad-hoc environment. Also the third point
suggests that what we are building is not based on a standard, i.e.
instable. Can it be reworded to indicate that we will use standardised
scenarios based on business models transmitted with an extensible technical
architecture?
A5. The page titled 'EDI - Failure to Scale'. If we wan to retain David
Webber's copyright, I will have to bring it to the steering committee before
we can publish.
A6. "Will likely utilize UML use case modelling, X3.285 information yet be
simplified." I do not understand this sentence. As far as I know the
Repository group will not limit itself to use cases. In what way will they
simplify?
A7. Registry and Repository. This may be for the RR group to refine but; we
seem to use 'register' sometimes and 'registry' sometimes. If they are
interchangeable this should be explained (in a glossary of terms?). Apart
from documents, other corner stones in the repository are business scenarios
and company profiles. Is the meta data stored in the registry or the
repository?
A7. The page titled 'ebXML Core Components'. Is core component the same
thing as common components on the overview picture? If so we need to say
something about industry/sector specific components.
A8. The page titled 'ebXML Repository Objects'. What is meant with
declarative approach? Does this assume XMI?
A9. The page titled 'ebXML Repositories'. 2d paragraph. Delete 'can create
their own'.
A10. Is the Messaging group referred to in the notes the Transport group?
A11. The version attribute; What are the application rules 'for major and
minor'?
A12. The "owner " attribute; How do we ensure that the combined id is
globally unique?
A13. The "location" attribute; Is this not a registry?
A14. The page starting with 'A Search logic is employed...'; Can we change
X12 to EDI or EDIFACT to make it less corporate America centric? Is cbXML =
ebXML? Is cXML generally excepted term (i.e. is it just my ignorance?)

Requirements 0.60
R 1.5 B2C is in-scope but yet not mentioned in any drafts. Penultimate
bullet - was this not specifically mentioned by the ebXML chair as
out-of-scope? One basic thing is missing - make use of EDI experience.
2.5.1. The last two bullets are out-of-scope(?)
Figure 3-2. All the components in the model need to be clarified.
3.4 Last bullet - I believe this is a task for the core components group.

Transport v0-91
I think we need to align our vocabulary. Examples: Is 'Repository Management
System' not the same thing as Registry or Register? Are parties only
sending/receiving messages (compare stakeholders and actors in a UML model)?
A document is not necessarily digital.




Anders Grangard
Edifrance
Ingénieur - Consultant en Commerce électronique
Tel: +33 (0)1 42 91 57 93
http://www.edifrance.org