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: FW: comment on TA specification (From Marty Sachs)


I am forwarding this comments from Marty to the TA V1.0 document.

/Stefano

» -----Original Message-----
» From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
» Sent: 21 January 2001 01:36
» To: Stefano POGLIANI
» Cc: Duane Nickull; knaujok@home.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org;
» ebXML-Architecture List
» Subject: RE: comment on TA specification
»
»
»
» (As usual, someone please post to the TA list.)
»
» Stefano,
»
» Regarding the following, it is not in the appendix.  Line 49 is near the
» beginning of the TP chapter.
»
»    » 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..."
»
»      Marty I did not find this in the Appendix. Could you please be more
»      precise in order to locate it ?
»
» 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 01/19/2001 06:27:53 PM
»
» To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
» cc:   "Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, <knaujok@home.com>,
»       <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebXML-Architecture List"
»       <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
» Subject:  RE: comment on TA specification
»
»
»
» Marty,
»
»      thanks a lot for the comments. Find embedded some additional
» considerations and the new version of the appendix attached to this mail.
»
» Enjoy the week end.
»
» /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.
»
»      thanks a lot.
»
» »
» » "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.
»
»      I like your definition.
»      It is also very compact and clear, so, for me it is OK.
»      Again, since the term "Business Service Interface" is also used
several times
»      in other sections of the TA document, I would envisage that Duane and
Brian
»      would acknowledge that this definition you gave is appropriate also
to
»      the other contextes.
»      Then this definition should become part of the Glossary (and,
eventually,
»      recalled in the introduction of the TA document)
»
» »
» » 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..."
»
»      Marty I did not find this in the Appendix. Could you please be more
»      precise in order to locate it ?
»
» »
» » 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.
»
»      I performed a global replace.
»
» »
» » One of the technical editors should review this with regard to English
» » syntax and word usage.
» »
»
»      Please, forgive my poor english and my unsafe typing.
»
» » 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
» » » ******************************************************************
» » » *******************
» » »
» » »
» »
» »
» »
» »
» »
» »
»
»
»
»
»
»



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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC