ebxml-architecture message


OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: [Fwd: RE: comment on TA specification]




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: comment on TA specification
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:03:21 -0500
From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>
CC: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>,
knaujok@home.com,ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,ebXML-Architecture List
<ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>


N.B.  this will be rejected by the Architecture listserver.  Someone please
post it there.

Stefano,

The High Level Business Scenarios replacement appendix attached to your
email is considerably improved from the previous one.  I have only a few
comments. Some of these relate to material in the base TA specification
that relates to your appendix.

"Business Service Interface" appears many times in the TA specification but
I cannot find a definition there.  I know what it means from reading your
white paper but most readers will not understand it.  Since the term
"service interface" usually means the thin line between adjacent layers in
a stack such as the OSI communication model, it is very important to
provide a definition of BSI here.  I believe that the definition should say
that the BSI is a name for the middleware which supports B2B exchanges,
supports the CPA, and provides a bridge to each legacy application. Perhaps
you have a definition in the white paper that you can copy.

Line 499:  This refers to "business service interface requirements".  I
don't understand this term.  The CPP has no explicit requirements on the
BSI.  Its requirements all relate to the applicable standards such as
business process, messaging service, and transport protocol.  I suggest
changing the sentence to "...to express their minimum business process,
message-exchange, transport, and security requirements..."

HIGH LEVEL BUSINESS SCENARIOS REPLACMENT TEXT

The term "Commercial Transactions" should be replaced in several places by
"Business Transactions", which is the term now used by the BP team.

One of the technical editors should review this with regard to English
syntax and word usage.

Regards,
Marty


*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 01/18/2001 04:22:38 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
cc:   knaujok@home.com, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebXML-Architecture List
      <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: comment on TA specification



Marty,

     I found that many of the comments you highlight just map my list of
comments.
I would deal in this mail on the comments you made on the Appendix, since
it
was originally written by me. I have submitted a new version to Duane after
the TA V1.0 was published to deal with some of the comments, but not
everything you mention. Using your comments, I created a new version of teh
Appendix which is attached here.

Here below are my comments.

Best regards

/Stefano


 Line 1102 and following:  This appendix makes frequent use of the term
TPP
 (Trading Partner Profile).  The TA specification does not define the
 difference between a TPP and a CPP and the TP team is not defining such a
 (presumably higher level) document.  Please change TPP to CPP throughout
 this appendix.

     I have done it.


 Line 1142:  As noted above, the CPA does not reference the relevant TPPs
 (i.e. CPPs).  Please delete this line.


     You are right. This was an inheritance of the understanding before the
     f2f of the beginning of october. I actually removed the whole
construct
     which was saying :
          The CPA references :
               - the relevant TPPs
               - the legal terms and conditions related to the exchange.
     I removed this construct consistently in the appendix since it
appeared
     more than once.

 Line 1143:  Please delete this line.  The CPA does not reference legal
 terms and conditions in any architecturally meaningful way.  It
 may provide a #PCDATA field for recording the ID of an associated legal
contract, but
 that is all.

     You are right. See previous comment.


 Line 1144-1158:  These bullets relate to implementation, not to what the
 TPP (CPP) defines.  Please start a new "subhead" about implementation.

     Actually, the formatting in the final document was lost. The sentence
     starting with "The partners implement..." actually starts a new
     bullet.


 Line 1145 and elsewhere:  Please delete this line and other references to
 Business Service Interface. I can't find a definition of such a
construct.
 It probably refers to the B2B middleware.  Perhaps one could say "obtains
 the necssary middleware".

     This reference appears more than once.
     I may agree with you on changing the reference to the BSI with a more
     loose definition. But I found that the term "Business Service
Interface"
     appears many times in the TA document. For this reason I think that
     it is not "something new".

     At the moment I did not apply your proposed change in view of your
     comment on this: let me know what you think.


 Line 1174-1175:  This statement appears to say that each trading partner
is
 fully aware of the state of the entire process.  That is not correct.  At
 this stage of the development of the CPA and its support software, each
 partner is only aware of the state of its interactions with the other
 partner in the CPA.  In this case, TP 1 knows only about the state with
 respect to TP2, TP3 only knows about the state with respect to TP2, and
 only TP2 is aware of the total state of the three parties.

     I think this is what is written here. Probably the sentence

     "The assumption is that the "state" of the entire Business Process is
     managed by each Trading Partner,..."

     is the one that makes the confusion. But later in the same sentence
     it is clearly said that :

     "each Trading Partner is fully responsible of the commercial
transaction
     involving it..."

     and the examples say that.


 Line 1201:  As noted above, the CPA does not reference the relevant TPPs
 (i.e. CPPs).  Please delete this line.

     See previous comment.

 Terminology:  After extensive discussions, the TP team is consistently
 using the term "Party" to denote the owner of a CPP and a participant in
a
 CPA.  the TA team may wish to update the architecture document to agree.

     I tried to do in this new version. You may want to double check if the
     "replace" did not go too deep


 Regards,
 Marty



 ******************************************************************
 *******************

 Martin W. Sachs
 IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
 P. O. B. 704
 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
 Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
 Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
 ******************************************************************
 *******************


begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher 
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XML Technology Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01824-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.Sun.COM
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC