RE: ebXML: TA doc, sect 10, RegRep, redone as more of an Arch doc

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Jeff Suttor
>
I agree with this so I took the TA doc, sect 10, RegReg, and removed all 
requirements, specifications and implementation details.  Now that all 
non-Architecture content has been removed, it needs more fleshing out with
new 
content to be complete.  The document in its current state is attached to
this 
message.

I would like to propose that we incrementally rewrite the TA doc as an 
Architectural doc.  All of the good work that was done on the original doc
that 
is not Architectural in nature, can be reused by other teams.  e.g. some
use 
cases can be sent to the project teams to be used for their functional
specs, 
etc.

I have resoures that can be committed to this effort.

What does the project team think?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeff, 

In my new found role as the Grinch-who-stole-Christmas-from-Palo-Alto
- this latest draft of yours does not pass my Grinch-filter on any scale.

The solution is NOT to gut the entire thing so that virtually nothing
of substance or value is being communicated (this happened to
the Requirements document in Belgium) - sure if the TA doc says
virtually nothing - then noone can disagree with it!!

We need a better strategy.

Looking at the Part 1 and Part 2 work we have done so far, there
is lots of good substance that should go into the Architecture 
document - including the latest work that has come out of 
OASIS in the last few weeks.   We also have lots of good diagrams.

Notice in an architecture document diagrams are KEY and 
VITAL pieces for people to conceptualize from.

So - my Grinch filter failed on your draft - because it had NO diagrams
in it!!!

Anyway - I believe that the input to TA has been done once from
RegRep - we need to review that - Lisa Carnahan covered this
for us in San Jose - so I would like to see a review with Lisa as
team lead (if Lisa can spare us the time at least as reviewer)
and then put some coordinated effort into this.

Jeff - your stuff came too far out of left field, Duanes was out of
right field - we need something in the middle!

Trying not to be too grinchy here.

Thanks, DW.