Re: CC minutes

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Hmmm... 

This may not fit into any of the currently identified
sections.

It would be closest to Design Objectives I guess. Possibly
a new sub-section which was entitled: "Design Conventions for ebXML Specifications"
or something to that effect.

Cheers,

Chris

> Brian Eisenberg wrote:
> 
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01803-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Senior Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard