Subject: RE: CC minutes
Sorry about that :-)
Section 4.5 refers to conventions for the TA document, not ebXML. Perhaps we could insert a "Naming Conventions" or "Capitalization" sub-section (5.3 Capitalizatoin) in the design objectives section (5)
Thoughts?
EBXML TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICATION 1
1 STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT 1
2 EBXML TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE PARTICIPANTS 1
4 INTRODUCTION 3
4.1 Summary of Contents of Document 3
4.2 Audience and Scope 4
4.3 Related Documents 5
4.4 Normative References 5
4.5 Document Conventions 5
5 DESIGN OBJECTIVES 5
5.1 Problem Description and Goals 5
5.2 Caveats and Assumptions 6
6 EBXML SYSTEM OVERVIEW 6
7 EBXML ARCHITECTURE REFERENCE MODEL 8
7.1 Overview 8
7.2 ebXML Business Operational View 10
7.3 ebXML Functional Service View 12
8 EBXML FUNCTIONAL PHASES 13
8.1 Overview 13
8.1.1 The Implementation Phase 13
8.1.2 The Discovery and Retrieval Phase 13
8.1.3 The Run Time Phase 13
8.2 Implementation Phase 14
8.3 Discovery and Retrieval Phase 14
8.4 Run Time Phase 15
9 EBXML INFRASTRUCTURE 15
9.1 Trading Partner Information [CPP and CPA's] 15
9.1.1 Introduction 16
9.1.2 CPP Formal Functionality 16
9.1.3 CPA Formal Functionality 16
9.1.4 CPP Interfaces 17
9.1.5 CPA Interfaces 17
9.1.6 Non-Normative Implementation Details [CPP and CPA's] 17
9.2 Business Process and Information Modeling 18
9.2.1 Introduction 18
9.2.2 Formal Functionality 18
9.2.3 Interfaces 19
9.2.4 Non-Normative Implementation Details 19
9.3 Core Components and Library Functionality 20
9.3.1 Introduction 20
9.3.2 Formal Functionality 20
9.3.3 Interfaces 21
9.3.4 Non-Normative Implementation Details 21
9.4 Registry Functionality 22
9.4.1 Introduction 22
9.4.2 Formal Functionality 22
9.4.3 Interfaces 23
9.4.4 Non-Normative Implementation Details 24
9.5 Messaging Service Functionality 24
9.5.1 Introduction 24
9.5.2 Formal Functionality 27
9.5.3 Interfaces 27
9.5.4 Non-Normative Implementation Details 28
10 CONFORMANCE 29
10.1 Introduction 29
10.2 Conformance to ebXML 29
10.3 Conformance to the Technical Architecture Specification 30
10.4 General Framework of Conformance Testing 30
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE EBXML BUSINESS SCENARIOS 31
Scenario 1 31
Two Trading Partners set-up an agreement and run the associated exchange. 31
Scenario 2: 32
Three or more Trading Partners set-up a Business Process implementing a supply-chain eBusiness scenario. 32
Scenario 3 34
A Company sets up a Portal which defines a Business Process involving the use of external business services 34
Scenario 4 34
Three or more Trading Partners engage in eBusiness using Business Processes that were created by each respective Trading Partner and run the associated business exchanges. 34
DISCLAIMER 36
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 36
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:18 AM
To: Brian Eisenberg
Cc: agrangard@nycall.com; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: CC minutes
Brian,
the snippet should probably come from Nikola's draft
recommendation, not my rambling.
As for which section, since I cannot read the TOC
(no Word for Solaris last time I checked;-) I'll
leave that decision up to you folk.
If I recall earlier versions, wasn't there a conventions
section or something to that effect?
I would not place it in the compliance section, that's
something completely different.
Cheers,
Chris
> Brian Eisenberg wrote:
>
> I absolutely agree with Chris, and propose that I insert his wording into the TA spec (which I'm
> putting the finishing touches on this morning. I'll have it out to the group by the end of the day
> (Seattle time).
>
> Chris - any suggestion on what section of the document would be the best place to insert this
> snippet?
>
> Please find the attached TOC for the latest TA spec.
>
> --Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:35 AM
> To: agrangard@nycall.com
> Cc: ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: CC minutes
>
> Anders/team,
>
> With regards to:
>
> "Nicola reported that only one response had been received on his email on the subject, which
> should
> be called Capitalisation rather than naming convention to avoid confusion with the work being
> performed by the Core Components team on the semantic aspects.
>
> It was agreed that this should remain a task for the Technical Architecture but close cooperation
> with the other teams is needed."
>
> Why does this never seem to get resolved and finalized? There has been some
> discussion around this for as long as I can recall. We (TR&P and TP teams)
> need to have the issue resolved once and for all.
>
> I am in favor of the proposal (UpperCamelCase for Elements, lowerCamelCase
> for attributes), but without clear guidance, we're likely to end up with
> a bunch of DTD or XSD schemas which have differing capitalization schemes
> which is (IMHO) unprofessional and would reflect poorly.
>
> PLEASE make a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS decision on this matter and do so
> quickly. We are trying to finalize these various DTD/XSD schemas that the
> infrastructure components define/require.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> "agrangard@nycall.com" wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached the minutes from yesterday's TA conference call.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Anders Grangard
> > Edifrance
> > Ingénieur - Consultant en Commerce électronique
> > Tel: +33 (0)1 42 91 62 24
> > http://www.edifrance.org
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Name: TA_CC_141200.doc
> > TA_CC_141200.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> > Encoding: BASE64
>
>
>
> Name: TA TOC.doc
> TA TOC.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC