[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [Fwd: TA TEAM - PLEASE BE READY TO REVIEW THE DISPOSITION OF COMMENTSO NTHE TA SPEC V1.0]
from this message it looks as if we shall need to review the TA change log prior to Vancouver. -- regards tim mcgrath TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
Title: TA TEAM - PLEASE BE READY TO REVIEW THE DISPOSITION OF COMMENTS ON THE TA SPEC V1.0
- From: Brian Eisenberg <BrianE@DataChannel.com>
- To: ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:34:32 -0800
Team -
Duane and I have been working around the clock for the past three days on disposing of all the public comments received on the TA spec v1.0. We will be circulating the updated spec, along with a detailed disposition package by the end of the day tomorrow (Thurs). We would like the TA team to review the disposition package from Thursday - Monday. We would like to propose a vote by email to approve the spec for re-submission to the QR team. Please review the package and submit your vote to the TA list.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT A REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATION, BUT RATHER A REVIEW OF THE DISPOSITION OF COMMENTS ON V1.0. AFTER WE RELEASE THE UPDATED SPEC (WHICH WILL BE V1.0.1) TO THE TEAM, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED FROZEN, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF ANY TA TEAM MEMBERS HAVE ISSUES WITH THE DISPOSITION OF COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO ADDRESS THEM IN THE SPEC WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHICH MAY RESULT IN SUBSEQUENT CHANGES TO THE SPEC.
Please email me if you have any questions, and keep an eye on the TA list for the disposition package. I should have it out sometime tomorrow.
Regards,
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano POGLIANI [mailto:stefano.pogliani@sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 9:23 AM
To: Karsten Riemer; hha@mosaic-ag.com
Cc: Petit, John; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0
Well, possibly this has been extensively discussed before I started to
attend the distlists and so my point is simply obsolete.
But I think that in the TA document there should simply be a mention that
refers to a mechanism for granting unique references. This mechanism may
well be UIDs if this has already been decided by the RegRep team.So, I would imagine a couple of short sentences in a single place to which
all other parts of the document may point.Just my 2 cents.
/stefano
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:kriemer@volcano.east.sun.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2001 00:26
> To: hha@mosaic-ag.com
> Cc: 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Petit, John; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0
>
>
> To help settle this discussion on UID's, I would like to log an issue to
the
> TA v1.0 that says:
>
> lines 399-425: move to section 9 (that puts the UID discussion where it
> belongs, under RegRep chapter.
>
> lines 395-398 and 427-430 and figure 4: move to end of section 6 and add a
> little bit of introductory text, saying that figure 4 illustrates the
> architectural components required to 'run' the example scenario
> in figure 1.
>
> Drop section 7.3 (which now no longer has any content)
>
> -karsten
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Hi Stefano, hi John, hi List!
> >I like to express my point of view to the UID-discussion below...I
> >did that earlier during the review cycle...
> >
> >The whole ebxml idea becomes much more clear at least to the
> >(converter-)developers if
> >the term UID/GUID would be explicit used within the TA doc.
> >To distinguish the concept of ebxml from other concepts (e.g.
> >BizTalk), to proof that
> >ebxml is not just another standard und to show to the world that we
> >have learned from
> >the past 20 years of EDI(fact) the term of UID/GUID should be
> >descripted within the
> >TA doc.
> >I agree with Johns comment that "UIDs are going to play a critical
> >role in cross schema
> >interoperability and semantics" and that the TA doc should covers
> >this topic as a bridge between
> >the different groups docs.
> >I agree also with John that "others would like to see [UID's covered
> >by the TA doc] as well as evidenced by the recent flurry of emails
> >over the use of UIDs"..........at least me.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Harald
> >
> >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >/////////////////////
> >Dr. Harald Hauschildt email: hha@mosaic-ag.com
> >MOSAIC SOFTWARE AG Tel: +49-(0)2225-882-425
> >Feldstr. 8 Fax: +49-(0)2225-882-201
> >D-53340 Meckenheim
> >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >/////////////////////
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Stefano POGLIANI [SMTP:stefano.pogliani@sun.com]
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:16 PM
> >To: Petit, John; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
> >Subject: RE: Comments on TA doc V1.0
> >
> >John,
> >
> > two words on your comment on my comments:
> >
> >"...I disagree with Stefano Pogliani's comment to downplay UID
> >references in
> >the TA doc. The use of UIDs goes across several ebXML groups (CC,
> >Registry,
> >BP, etc) and UIDs are going to play a critical role in cross schema
> >interoperability and semantics. As the TA doc should illustrate
> >concepts
> >that bridge several ebXML groups, UIDs should certainly be covered in
> >the TA
> >doc. In fact, I would like to see a bit more of an explanation of the
> >UID
> >mechanism for semantic translation of XML documents. Clearly this is
> >something others would like to see as well as evidenced by the recent
> >flurry
> >of emails over the use of UIDs."
> >
> >My comments raise from the following:
> > 1.. If CC, BP and CPA would require explicitely to use the UIDs,
> >then this
> >may be an "architectural" thing.
> > In this case I would "move" the explanation of them outside of the
> >RegRep
> >since, as you note, it is a technology that spans different domains.
> >At this
> >point, I would make a paragraph somewhere saying that, whenever a
> >Unique ID
> >is required, then the GUID (or any other mechanism) will be used
> >consistently and this same mechanism will be enforced by the RegRep.
> > 2.. If other teams do not need to explicitely reference UIDs, then
> >it will
> >be something inside the RegRep and it will be a technical
> >implementation.
> >I am not saying to remove any and all of the occurrences of
> >UID-related
> >sentences. I am trying to say that this would need to be a fair small
> >section that does not need to be repeated in too many places.
> >
> >/Stefano
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Petit, John [mailto:jpetit@kpmg.com]
> > Sent: 29 January 2001 01:23
> > To: 'ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org'
> > Subject: Comments on TA doc V1.0
> >
> >
> > Here are my comments in Word format.
> >
> > Cheers, John Petit
> > KPMG Consulting
> > XMLfs Team
> > Office: 970 728 9468
> > Mobile: 312 961 8956
> >
> >
> > << File: ATT00001.htm >>
> >
>
>
>
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:;-23520 fn:tim mcgrath end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC