Subject: Tr: Summary of findings of TA Spec. review.
Please find below the report from the Quality Review of the TechArch specification. To be discussed at today's conference call. Anders ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim McGrath <email@example.com> To: Klaus-Dieter Naujok <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Bob Sutor <email@example.com>; Bill Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Ray Walker <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 2:08 AM Subject: Summary of findings of TA Spec. review. > > Please find below (and attached ) the summary of our issues with the TA > Specification. > > More detailed notes are available on request to the QR Team. We welcome > the opportunity to assist with clarification on any of these issues. > > > -------------------- START OF DOCUMENT --------------------- > ebXML Quality Review Group > Summary of Review of > ebXML Technical Architecture Specification > Version: (0.8.71) Release Date: 13/9/2000 > > Report Prepared: Sept 20, 2000 > > Edited by: Nagwa Abdelghfour and Tim McGrath > > Key points why we recommended this document not go for public review: > > * This document does not define an Architecture - where each of the > components of the system and their interactions or interface points are > clearly defined and put in context. In some cases it tries to be a > Requirements Document and others a Design Specification. For example, > it should not get into the details of the design of components (as in > the RegRep section). That should remain with the respective project > team. > > * Lacks HIGH-LEVEL Use Cases for the operability of ebXML compliant > applications. In addition, the Use Cases are not complete in that they > fail to show the flow of actions. > > * The document is uneven, dealing with minutiae in some areas and making > generalisation elsewhere. For example, it is too focused on RegRep at > the expense of other issues. > > * Editorially, there are sections that are either unnecessary or > unorganised or unclear. We would expect the final document to be more > concise than this (ie. 83 pages). In addition, some sections appear > incomplete and contain several "... to be discussed later ...", "...TBD > ...", "... see section zzzz ...", etc. This indicates the immaturity of > the document. > > Some of these points may be acceptable in isolation but reflect the need > for further development. > > More importantly, some points were raised at the previous document > review in San Jose and then subsequently by team members - yet they > still appear in this document. This may indicate an endemic problem > with the document's development processes rather than a systematic one > in the approach used. > > -------------------- END OF DOCUMENT --------------------- > > -- > regards > tim mcgrath > TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160 > phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 > >
eList eXpress LLC