Subject: FW: comment on TA specification
on behalf of Marty. /Stefano » -----Original Message----- » From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] » Sent: 20 January 2001 00:03 » To: Stefano POGLIANI » Cc: Duane Nickull; knaujok@home.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; » ebXML-Architecture List » Subject: RE: comment on TA specification » » » » 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 » » ****************************************************************** » » ******************* » » » » » » » » » »
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC