Re: New Tech Arch Document

[duane <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

THanks Chris:
 
> We already have a Requirements document. What we need (desperately)
> is an architecture which describes each of the high-level components,
> how each of these components fit/work together to form the whole and
> which describes the principals by which all components will be designed.

THe new document,  while being a ways from being considered finished, 
does move generally towards this direction.   

THe first section "Architectural OVerview" describes the object
relations between each component of the system and offeres a simple run
time view of the system.  IT shows how each of the components are
related to each other in a rudementary way.  It also starts to define
who is responsible for the interface designs.

The subsequent sections on Trading Partner Profile Functionality,
Business Process Modelling Functional Requirements, Core Components..
Functional Requirements all try to limit their scope to a brief outline
then a section which details the functional requirements for each and
tells the reader what interfaces they must support.

THe Reg Rep section is stil very large but it was our intent to show
that there could be more than one way to implement the REG REp section. 
TO accomplish this,  we started to define the functional requirements
for the Registry/Repsoitory component.


> It should NOT get into the nitty gritty details of the design of the
> component which by rights should remain the perview of the respective
> project teams.

We do not intend to get into the design of each component.  There are
"examples" of what certain documents could look like to demonstrate the
functionality however, we clearly state that the onus is on the teams to
develop a system which will offer the facilities that msut be supported.

Please correct me if I am wrong.  It is very possible that somewhere
within this document, this does remain and it should be corrected.

We would also invite specific comments on each section to deal with
this.  As I stated during my presentation in San Jose,  we wanted to
make the functional requirements for each component known and show the
view of how they relate to each other.  THe run time scenario is not as
important but it aided in the development.

Are you available to take on one section of the TA Specification?  If we
could lure you into a commitment like this, it would speed things up
tremendously.

Thanks Chris

Duane Nickull

> 
> In my mind, this goes too far in prescribing the detailed set of
> functionality of the various components (most notably the RegRep)
> and does not go far enough in describing how the system's various
> components work in concert to deliver the ebXML vision.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> > Hello all:
> >
> > Here is the latest Tech Arch document.  There is no change log becuase
> > the document has been substantially reworked and reordered to the point
> > where the change log would be as long as the document itself.
> >
> > We need to reach internal consensus on this ASAP.  *PLEASE* read it
> > thoroughly before the conference call on the 7th.
> >
> > If we can agreee on it then,  we can send it  out to the rest of ebXML
> > for general comments.
> >
> > Duane Nickull,
> > Brian Eisenberg
> >
> > Editors
> >
> >   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                                Name: ebXML_TA_v1.8.6.doc..doc
> >    ebXML_TA_v1.8.6.doc..doc    Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> >                            Encoding: base64
> 
> --
>     _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
>    _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
>   _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
>        _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
> _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903