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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-bp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: Comments on BP Documents - BP Overview


Thanks for your detailed review of the BP Overview document.  Your comments
will be taken into account tomorrow in the Analysis/Methodology group
conference call.



                    "Stuart Campbell"                                                                              
                    <stuart.campbell@tieg        To:     plevine@telcordia.com                                     
                    lobal.com>                   cc:     ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org, (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia) 
                                                 Subject:     Comments on BP Documents - BP Overview               
                    04/16/01 05:08 PM                                                                              
                    Please respond to                                                                              


Please find below some largely editorial comments on the BP overview
documents.  Any which are beyond editorial are marked with a *.

Please see these as entirely personal comments since i wasnt quick enough
get them input through my role in QA.


Technical Strategy Director, Technical Strategy Team
Business Development Unit

Stuart Campbell
TIE Holding NV
UK          T:+44 1270 254019   F:+44 7971 121013
Netherlands  T:+31 20 658 9335   F:+31 20 658 9901
Global       M:+44 7970 429251   E:stuart.campbell@TIEGlobal.com
           W:www.TIEglobal.com P:www.stuartcampbell.co.uk

BP Overview
-3 dont understand the need for a subtitle especially when doesnt seem to
an explanation of title
-14-19 yet another format for this (-->qa)
-23 section - not as per template
-83 misalignment of page number
-85 section - not in other specs (--->qa)
-105 and throughout   indented, not in other specs
-108 You dont have to do ebXML via the internet
-*119 ebXML doesnt have a security model
-127 i am not aware ebXML will be used for the discovery of either products
or services
-140 section - not as per other specs (-->qa)
-161 2 TBDs to be completed
-170,172 use of 'heretofore' is scary - out of sync with other specs
-182 and throughout, generally everyone is using round bullets (also
-192 and throughout, suggest page break on major sections
-201 & 224 'then finally back to process definition' - i dont understand
this should be so - at least not if you do your job right - should explain
-206 in this narrative MAY should not be used this way
-224 do not beleive this text is necessary or helpful - at least it needs a
-233 process related information should be excluded - at best this should
in ebXML overview document
-*236 'resource exchanges' is a complete new and uncommon term and should
defined (or suggest to use more normal text)
-*240 to me all this 'economic ....' is wierd and uncommon
-247 and throughout, usage of capitalisation on bullets is inconsistent -
most capitalise all
-254 remove add at bullet start
-255 This whole para seems out of place and references a figure further on
-263 left side text isnt formatted correct (isnt in pdf)
-263 would be help full to say the left side is partner 1 and the right is
partner 2
-263 should package be payload
-268 re footnote - i do not see this REA is being either well accepted,
review or published - i and anyone else i have spoken to has never heard of
-269 and throughout    artefacts is an uncommon word which most wont
recognise or be confused about
-298 double sapce between metamodel and is
-298 i suggest not to associate the meta model with semantics so strongly
since gives immediate impression is more related to CCs
--298 and section; the  font change is unecessary and uncommon and
-311 artefacts as before
-317 the representations are non standalone - they should be completely
dependant on each other
-323 should can be may (MAY)
-324 word signal is used but not introduced
-326 word pattern is used but not properly introduced
-328 CPAs not defined but CPP is
-*329 This graphic is not described at all!!!
-*329 what is BRV
-329 single transactions VS collaborations
-*329 what is BTV
-*339 there is no such thing as a core library is there
-339 possible-->probable
-356 The team -->Such a
-*367/367 digra, is not described at all!!!!
-*367 how are two halves of diagram linked
-370 how does this text relate to the diagram above
-373 information component relates to CC but is not a term they use
-376 documents-->business documents
-379 attention --> to
-380 business service interfaces is not defined yet
-380 the message..interface seems out of place here and should be delted
-382 with them" to do what?
-386 right text is undefined
-397 repeated REA reference in footnote
-*397 shouldnt the top two horizontal arrows be reversed, the top right
vertical arrow be reversed
-*402 this suggests arrows should go other way
-406 what does 'typed' mean here
-414 duality is not a common word - should be defined more
-421 so whats the implication of this para
-445 controls is underfined
-450 and so who are the reviewers
-452 i guess this is from idef, would be helpful to group the side in to
input, output, rousurces, controls
-452 doesnt say what diagram is about
-475 footnonte - this note adds no value
-481 example would be helpful
-486 SHOULD be a may
-489 would like to see the specific option 'company' included
-515 REF function not even really hinted at
-513 in general there is not introduction to the techy para
-524 what is a constricted domain
-529 would it not be helpful to put UML/UMM somewhere in this diagram
-552 the whole principal of ebXML is surely that they would be composed of
-552 im not convinced that BP and CC are using the same terminology here,
also same for RR
-551 i think this should be only in the CC spec
-570 domain components will and should be the first source
-*587 xCBL is not a standard in the same sence as the others
-589 it isnt the metamodel that specifies is it
-635 text fragment at end
-639 diagram is inserted in sentance
-*639 more techy point; you will end up with a completely unlimited umber
BP scheams - how will this be controlled
-652 duplicate text
-660 glossary should be at start (also qa issue)
-660 not all new terms are in the glossary
-662 unecessary reference
-716 Industry sources = UN/CEFACT - this is a meaningless reference
-716 end of page 1 is cutoff
-716 an example column would be very helpful
-716 these context should be the same as CC context paper

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC