Final Review Instructions

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Hello TA Team: (QRT cc'd FYI)

Brian and I have finished the disposition of comments.  In general, 
most of the comments were grammatical and there was lots of praise for
the current TA Spec.  We have also received coments from outside the
ebXML community that congratulate the work done for this document and
the concepts within.

Shortly,  you will have the opportunity to review the disposition of
comments.  Please keep in mind the scope fo this reveiw.

- This is not a Review cycle of the actual document.  YOu are reviewing
the disposition of comments only.
- There are lots of comment dispositions, please budget time
accordingly.

We wish to present this document to the Quality Regiew Team on Monday
along with the extensive log of changes and comment disposition.  It is
our hope that they will expediate a review and release to the plenary
for a final vote in Vancouver.

Please participate and vote by email by Monday at 12:00 Noon PST with
either of the two choices:

Yes - send it to QRT
No - it I disagree with comment disposition.

If the choice is "No",  please be prepared to cite reasons why the
changes are not necessary.

General Comments Overview:

The Quality Review team Feedback/Comments were top -notch and were
incorporated.  All have been addressed.  I beleive all but one were
adopted.  many of these addressed the comment swe received from the
plenary, showing us that all are thinking in the right direction.

The first tier of comments (those dealing with technical wording,
issues) were disposed of generally by adhering to the consensus of our
Team and the QRT discussions we had about content for the document in
Japan.  The issue of what content belongs in the TA document was very
explicit and we believe that this document is 100% in conformance with
the general consensus.  For the record,  roughly 85-95% of these
comments were adopted or wording changed to reflect them.  All the
issues were relatively minor and do not effect the overall Architecture
of ebXML.  

There were second tier comments which were largely personal opinions. 
An example of these would be "The box in the corner should be blue
instead of green - I don;t like the shape either".  Many of these were
addressed with common sense and a view that many of them came without
any technical arguements to back up the request.  Still - we carefully
spend days examining the issues and gave all of these comments a
thorough disposition.  Not all were adopted and the reasons are outlined
in the comments disposition document.

There was one last group of comments which were either insufficient or
large and contrary to many of the principles and conventions of ebXML. 
Needless to say,  these also had to be carefully assessed and dealt
with.  Examples of these comments may be "Remove Chapters 4 and 7 - they
are not necessary".  We felt these were dealt with very fairly in light
of the fact that the commenter(s) did not bother to participate in TA
discussions, involve themselves with the QRT/TA process and also did not
provide any solid technical, procedural or other reasoning behind their
requests.  Most of these were not adopted on the basis that the requests
did not conform to the QRT and TA teams work and direction and also
contravened the work of several other teams.  Still - all of these
comments were carefully analyzed and some were adopted partially (in
principle).  Many were also addressed by previous changes we made to the
document and by addressing other comments.

In general,  the Editors feel that this process is now at a close and it
is time to vote on this document as a whole by the ebXML plenary.  We do
not anticipate any significant or sustained oposition to the TA
specification.

Please expect an email from Brian shortly. 

Thanks for all the hard work, expecially of my fellow editor Brian
Eisenberg.

Duane Nickull