Re: FW: New Technical Architecture Specification v 0.8.71

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

i do not think it will be directed to QR until tomorrow.  i suspect the posting
was to prepare us rather than 'start the clock'.

with respect to your comments - if we believe that the comments from other
members are valid and have not been incorporated, then we put that in our
report.

if the issues are significant enough to warrant not spending any further time
on the document until these are resolved - then so be it.  (bearing in mind
that this particular document review is a chance to provide constructive
feedback  to the TA team.)


Joseph Baran wrote:

> To the QR team:
>
> Duane posted the message below to TA and to the Steering Committee(!), but
> for some reason _not_ to the QR team, so I thought I would forward it to
> the QR team for your edification, especially since it includes a request to
> the QR team.
>
> <jb>I have inserted my own comments within like this</jb>
>
> ----- Beginning of quoted message from Duane -----
>
> From:   Duane Nickull [SMTP:duane@xmlglobal.com]
> Sent:   Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:37 PM
> To:     ebXML-Architecture List; ebXML-StC
> Subject:        New Technical Architecture Specification v 0.8.71
>
> Hello all:
>
> This is a progress report on the new TA version 0.8.71
>
> The document has been posted to the TA Project team last week and was
> discussed for submssion to the plenary for comments.  IT was approved in
> concept however, it was understood that a newer version wouldbe
> submitted reflecting some minor grammatical and structural changes.
>
> <jb>
> The previous version referred to above was posted last Tuesday (Sept 5 at
> around 18:30 UT) and was labeled "ebXML_TA_v1.8.6.doc..doc". (sic) The
> posting included the statements:
>
> "There is no change log becuase
> the document has been substantially reworked and reordered to the point
> where the change log would be as long as the document itself.
> We need to reach internal consensus on this ASAP.  *PLEASE* read it
> thoroughly before the conference call on the 7th.
> If we can agreee on it then,  we can send it  out to the rest of ebXML
> for general comments."
>
> The TA had a conference call on the 7th, which I did not participate in, so
> I have no idea in what sense it was "approved in concept".
> </jb>
>
> The changed version was released to the TA group on Monday with a note
> saying it will be suibmitted to the Quality review team on Wednesday
> (tomorrow) unless there are major objections.  Since there have been no
> major objections,  it would appear that the document is bound for
> submission tomorrow by 12:00 PST.
>
> <jb>
> There have been, in fact, NO other postings to the TA list at all since
> yesterday, but during the previous week there were some objections that at
> least I consider reasonably "major". I have no idea whether the authors of
> the comments consider them "major".
>
> For example, how about this one:
> </jb>
>
> ----- Beginning of quoted message from Chris-----
>
> From:           Christopher Ferris [SMTP:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent:   Tuesday, September 05, 2000 3:46 PM
> To:     ebXML-Architecture List
> Subject:        Re: New Tech Arch Document
>
> Is this an architecture document or yet another requirements
> document?
>
> I would suggest a perusal of the miriad "definitions" of the
> term. The first two are quite useful.
>
>         http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/definitions.html
>
> The Technical Architecture should be descriptive, in a general
> sense of the components of the system and their interactions
> or interface points.
>
> We already have a Requirements document. What we need (desperately)
> is an architecture which describes each of the high-level components,
> how each of these components fit/work together to form the whole and
> which describes the principals by which all components will be designed.
> It should NOT get into the nitty gritty details of the design of the
> component which by rights should remain the perview of the respective
> project teams.
>
> In my mind, this goes too far in prescribing the detailed set of
> functionality of the various components (most notably the RegRep)
> and does not go far enough in describing how the system's various
> components work in concert to deliver the ebXML vision.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
> ------- end of quoted message from Chris ---------------
> <jb>
> That was followed shortly by this one:
> </jb>
> ----- Beginning of quoted message from David -----
>
> From:   David RR Webber [SMTP:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> Sent:   Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:52 PM
> To:     Duane Nickull
> Cc:     ebXML-Architecture List
> Subject:        re: New Tech Arch Document
>
> Message text written by Duane Nickull
> >
> If we can agreee on it then,  we can send it  out to the rest of ebXML
> for general comments.
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Duane,
>
> I agree with Chris' comments - especially vis the RegRep section.
>
> I'd like to see that handled separately so that RegRep can work
> that - before a war breaks out here ; -)
>
> It's good though that you are prepared to try new approaches here
> and invest all the time in grappling with the tough issues instead
> of trying to gloss over them.
>
> We have to nail this exactly right - otherwise it will forever haunt
> us.
>
> Thanks, DW.
>
> ------- end of quoted message from David ---------------
> <jb>
>
> To Duane's credit, he did respond in some detail to these objections, but
> his response basically said that he disagreed with Chris's interpretation.
> This is getting rather more long (and more deeply nested!) than I
> anticipated, so I won't quote the whole thing here. For the full text, see
> this link:
>
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-architecture/200009/msg00011.html
>
> As far as I could tell, no further changes were made as a result of these
> comments.
>
> </jb>
>
> We would request that the Quality Review team finish its' review no
> later than 5 days from that date and the document be submitted to the
> plenary pursuant to the specification submission procedure.
>
> On a personal note,  it is my hope that this document is reasonably
> sufficient and can be voted on by Tokyo.
>
> Duane Nickull
>
> ------- end of quoted message from Duane ---------------
>
> <jb>
> My fear is that the long-standing complaint about this document  - that it
> is fundamentally not an Architecture document - (as stated quite clearly by
> Chris above) has apparently still not been addressed.
> </jb>
>
> Joe Baran

--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

begin:vcard 
n:McGrath;Tim
tel;pager:+61(0)299633829
tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
tel;fax:+61(0)893352142
tel;work:+61(0)893352228
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au 
x-mozilla-cpt:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard