Subject: Re: TA agenda Tokyo
Cunningham, I completely agree with you, see you in Tokyo, Best Regards, Nagwa "Cunningham, Robert" wrote: > Nagwa, > > May I submit, now that the TA is out on the web for review, the > individual members of the ebXML plenary and each of the project teams review > it, submit their comments so that we concentrate, in Tokyo, on ensuring that > the TA actually does describe the over all technical architecture for which > each of the project team documents support. > > We may find that the issues between the TA and the project teams are > very minor and can be corrected with little effort. > > Duane and the TA project team are only trying to ensure that the > final pieces to the puzzle actually fit together and are acceptable to the > ebXML members. > > Respectfully, > > Bob Cunningham > Military Traffic Management Command > Alexandria, VA. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nagwa [mailto:nagwa.abdelghfour@sun.com] > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 7:42 PM > To: Duane Nickull > Cc: Murray Maloney; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org; 'ebXML > Coordination' > Subject: Re: TA agenda Tokyo > > Duane, > > The TA document suppose be the (road map) to what is being develop in the > specs the working groups spend 12 month working on, the TA doc suppose to > define the interfaces and interactions between all the components, and if > these working group are developing their spec according to the scope and > the functionality of exbxml requirements doc, and there are no overlaps or > problems with the integration between the components, they not suppose to > change just because the TA document has larger scope or different > functionality. I know it is not how it should be done, and the TA document > suppose to be the first document and provide the road map for other specs to > follow, but you know as every one else in ebxml know, it is too late for > that. > > Nagwa > > Duane Nickull wrote: > > > nagwa wrote: > > > Is this means that if the any of working groups have a different > > > vision of the functionality and Scope of ebxml, than what the TA > > > document is presenting, the working group should change to meet the > > > scope and functionality of the TA document, or I misunderstood you, if > > > this is what you meant, I am afraid to say I don't agree with you, it > > > is too late to do that, I believe the TA document now suppose to be > > > driven by the working groups specs, the only time the working group > > > need to change if there are overlaps, integration problem between the > > > components, or they are presenting functionality out of ebxml scope. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. > > > > Nagwa: > > > > The Architecture of ANY system ensures that the pieces fit together and > > all the components work together for a common functionality. I can't > > even believe you would suggest the alternative. > > > > Accordingly to most modern thinking, Architecture describes interfaces, > > constraints, interactions and outlines components that interoperate to > > make a functional system. > > > > What if the TPA doesn't allow for business partners to trade information > > back and forth? What if TRP can't deliver messages with an XML UTF-8 > > payload? These things have to be done or ebXML won't work. If you > > suggest even for a moment that we simply modify the TA to support > > whatever it is the others group shave decided, who's responsibility is > > it to make sure that ebXML actually functions? > > > > The TA Team has (along with significant contributions by many other > > teams) spent countless hours ensuring we align with the Requirements > > Group. It was explained that the TA document will be the next document > > to be approved back in Belgium. > > > > The Architecture is a roadmap to show what interfaces the other > > components must supply in order to be functional as a whole. > > > > If your solution is to just let all the other groups develop whatever > > they want and have TA document it, it really paves the way for anarchy > > among ebXML groups. > > > > Duane
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC