Re: Questions from Brussels

["Nikola Stojanovic" <nhomest1@twcny.rr.com>]

Hi John!

See my comment tagged as <Nikola>.

----- Original Message -----

From: Petit, John

To: ebxml-architecture@oasis-open.org

Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 6:31 PM

Subject: Questions from Brussels

Technical Architecture

1. Many questions have come up in the course of our sub-groups work over the past six months. Anders made a good point in saying that these issues, which seem to be continually swept under the rug, should be handled more formally and thoroughly. What is happening with that?
2. The global search mechanism is still undefined. How will such a global search work? How will users find particular schemas to search upon? How will the perform common core searches?
3. How will items in repositories be updated when changes are made? What is the change mechanism?
4. Should we not have more UML designs in our document? Should these not form the basis of our architecture? If so, we should have them now. Perhaps we should also follow the Rational Method, as several other groups are doing.
5. If we are building this, or specing this, should we not follow the Rational Process and develop the domain model and  a complete use case list for requirements? So far we have not produced UML models of the architecture. This seems remiss as UML is playing such a large role in ebXML.

<Nikola>

It is difficult to translate RUP artifacts, roles, workflows, ... into ebXML project as it is now, esp. in the area of Technical Architecture. I do agree with you that we need more Use Cases (more as a Usages not as Scenarious) and UML diagrams - see first attachment in http://www.xml.org/archives/ebxml-architecture/2000/05/0014.html and some other things as you mention in your post.

For now, I am curious where is the latest version of the doc (as I recall we still need to modify the TR&P diagram and to decide what to do with definitions in that section; I am also not sure if we need to change anything else in other sections).

</Nikola>