Re: Comments on 0.4 document

[Peter Kacandes <Peter.Kacandes@ebay.sun.com>]

Hi,

I've had these comments sitting on my desk on yellow post-it notes for a while now. Since I'm 
trying to clean up, I figure its about time a sent them in, if they are not already 
irrelevant.

PG 13

More detail needed to explain what is meant

pg15

I wrote something down about the picture, but now I'm not sure what I meant. Looking at the 
picture, it seems to me that it doesn't say anything besides having an arrow pointing to some 
ebxml objects and that doesn't seem particularly helpful. Perhaps this is a problem of 
importing ppt into staroffice that the picture got screwed up?

pg 16

I think we've beaten the "2 APIs" issue to death. Its better on pg 17.

Auth-auth is still a big issue. As I've stated in previous postings, Sun's position is that we 
don't trust anybodys certs except for the ones we issue. I wonder how that would work with 
this.


pg 18

This is the first place that XQI shows up. Have to admit that I don't know anything about it 
and the page certainly doesn't provide any into on it. Has some decision be made that ebxml 
will use XQI for something? If so, I'd like to know more about it and what it is being 
proposed for being used for.


pg 20

It should be made clear that this is only one possibility. In many cases, the business will 
simply be implementing a standard model and will just point to it. They don't need to 
reregister it themselves. Ie. Not every business that does HL7 has to create that model for 
themselves and register it. Rather, all they need to do is to identify in the registry that 
they support the HL7 model and point to the specification for it. I believe that this will 
consitute the majority of the use rather than people just putting up their own custom models 
for others to inspect and see if they want to put the time and effort required into it to 
figure out how to use someones custom system.

pg 23

I don't understand what it means that the "Business Information" will be nuetral.

pg 33

I'm a little uncomfortable with this description of how it would work in terms of the process 
object. different people will implement it different ways. The internals shouldn't matter, 
just the interface. Let's not go into the internals of how people want to support it in their 
own systems.

pg 36

I'm very sceptical that that can really be done it practice.

pg 37

Would be nice to show explicity that the system can support any number of systems and not just 
those three (ie. xml.org, eCo, BizTalk). Could be done just by showing an explicit elipses ( . 
. .) to show "Plug in Your model Here" May even want to just have it be System A, system B, . 
. . System X rathern than use those real names
Peter Kacandes

Application Planning, Architecture & Strategy	phone number: 	X36529
WWOPS IT/Supply Chain Management		email:	peter.kacandes@ebay