Re: latest Version

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

<Line 53 - important>
Sort Participants by LastName.
</Line 53 - important>

<Line 53 - very important>
Add 2 more Participants: Dick Brooks - Group 8760 and Henry Lowe - OMG.
Also, I don't have the name of the 4th member of our SJ team who worked with
us on MS section.
</Line 53 - very important>

<Line 63>
Change FirstName from Nicola to Nikola.
</Line 63>

<Line 99>
Just by looking at TOC, CC section looks very thin. Should secs 18 and 19 be
under the same supersection?
</Line 99>

<Line 173 - show stopper>
It is very important to make it clear that ebXML is not "whole or nothing"
approach and that it would be possible to use just some of ebXML aspects
that suit a particular Business. This is an architectural issue and it might
be very important for early adopters as well. We've discussed this issue
before and I hope we agree that there are different paths and possibilities
for Businesses to adopt ebXML.
</Line 173 - show stopper>

<Line 203 - show stopper>
Are steps 8,9 and 10,11 swapped? How would Partners agree on TPA if they
don't know Business scenarios (and which ones to choose).
</Line 203 - show stopper>

<Line 226 - show stopper>
This very important step is not represented in figure 1. I think it should
be.
</Line 226 - show stopper>

<Line 288>
AFAIK, we have not discussed "Open-edi" so far in TA, and I need some time
to digest it. Anyway, whole section is very heavy on "Open-edi" and doesn't
mention any other initiatives.
</Line 288>

<Line 430 - very important; almost show stopper>
Figure 5 contains: Registry Service Interface and Business Service
Interface. There is no Messaging Service Interface. This interface is so
important that it should be represented in this View, as suggested in
section 10.
</Line 430 - very important; almost show stopper>

<Line 441 - very important>
We have already discussed the issue of UUID/GUIDs several times and I would
not bring it up again. I would imagine that RR people would be the ones who
will have some comments related to this if it is not in synch with their
spec. I would suggest that we just add "Globally ..." qualifier to this
entity.
</Line 441 - very important>

<Line 531,542 - very important; almost show stopper>
Again, MS - Messaging Service is not represented even though it is mentioned
in some places.
</Line 531, 542 - very important; almost show stopper>

<Line 594 - very important; almost show stopper>
Up to this point, doc has not addressed the issue of "ebXML Modularized" and
it should have. It doesn't show "ports" of components and how would ebXML
adopter choose what components / packages are needed for her/his own
Business.
</Line 594 - very important; almost show stopper>

<Line 625 - show stopper>
Do we store ebXML Metamodels in ebXML Registry or ebXML Repository? Also the
concept of Repository needs to be defined properly, IMO (previous section).
</Line 625 - show stopper>

<Line 632>
We need to clarify what we mean by XML Schema.
</Line 632>

<Line 801 - show stopper>
We should not call the upper layer "Transport Layer". There are many other
aspects in this layer so I wouldn't use this name.
</Line 801 - show stopper>

<Line 964 - show stopper>
Please put back the graphics from the draft version of TR&P section, which
was posted on 10/3/2000. Current ones seem to be corrupted (do not show
everything).
</Line 964 - show stopper>

<Line 1125 - very important>
Once more, some Usages that show "ebXML Modularized". Like, I have Messaging
Service spec and I don't care about the "Whole Thing". How can I use just MS
piece and do some Business with someone else. Is this a valid Usage of
ebXML? I would say yes, and I think we need to show some of those "Minimal
ebXML" kinds.
</Line 1125 - very important>

<General - very important >
We need to accompany this document with (or at least point to) "Open Issues"
doc.
</General - very important>

It looks to me that we can have a version that is ready for QA on Monday. I
am not sure about the procedure prior to posting to QA. Does the TA group
need to vote on that Action (posting to QA) or not?

Regards,
Nikola