Comments to ebXML The Role of Context ... 1.01

["Hayes, Brian" <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>]

I respectfully submit my comments to the document "ebXML The role of context
in the re-usability of Core Components and Business Processes," version
1.01.

Line	Comments
102	Consider rephrasing the first part of the sentence to read "This
document describes the contextual categories that have ..."
125	Need to state what the subject of the sentence is being "applied"
to.
130-131	What does it mean that the contextual changes do not apply to the
business document itself? Can contextual changes apply to the top level
structure of a document?  Why is a document not an Aggregate Information
Entity?
134	The phrase "extremely tricky" leads me to consider that perhaps
Context is perhaps not worth using or applying.  Consider using the phrase
"non-trivial."
133-163	These paragraphs -- while very useful information -- belong
elsewhere, perhaps section 5.
165-183	This text needs to come earlier, particularly lines 165-168.
Consider putting these lines before line 124.
172-183	Need to consistently use or not use periods
180	Use lower case c in context.
182	What is meant by this bullet item?  Why would one strip out context
rules and components?
183	What is meant by this bullet item?  What are Document Templates?
189	Need to provide atleast a one line definition for Context
Constraints.
193	The Context Controlled Core Component Metamodel needs to be a UML
diagram.
193	I may have missed it, but it appears that the ApplicationRules
element is not described in the documentation that follows.
195	This should be section 5.1.1.
196-197	The relationship between the first part of the sentence and the last
part ("for which no pre-determined use name has been assigned") is unclear.
I suspect a period can be placed after "component" and the rest of the
sentence can be appropriately reworded and be made part of the second
paragraph (line 199).
200	Would it make sense to change "database" to "database or registry"?
203	Reference the document "ebXML CC Dictionary Entry Naming
Conventions."
205	This line uses the word restrictable and line 288 uses the word
reductions.  Do they have [essentially] the same meaning?  Can restrictable
be replace with reducable?
195-265	Overall the text is very good.  However, the definitions lack the
structure as used by the ebXML Busines Process Specification Schema document
and the UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology document.
211	MaintenanceAgency needs to be defined and it is not shown in the
Context Controlled CC Metamodel.  Is this a property of Basic Information
Entity?
215	If "XML Schema specification" is a formal document, it should be
referenced in an "Referenced Documents" section.
218	Can a URI be used in place of a URL?  If not, why not.  The use of
URL vs URI should be described in this document or some refrenced document.
219	There is no "External Value List" model element.  Is this External
List?  The label "External List" or "External Value List" is very generic.
Was this intentional?  Could a more descriptive name be used?
229	Aggregation Rules (plural) is in the metamodel but not Aggregation
Rule.  Fix the metamodel or the text.
243-244	The metamodel diagram does not show that a Functional Set is a set
of two or more Functional Sets.  It is also unclear why a Functional Set
cannot be a Core Component Type Definition.
244	Why was the word "record" used?  If appropriate, consider using the
word model.
244	It is not clear why rules that would cause restriction do not apply.
It seems that it would be a rare case that a trading partner would accept
more than one represenation given a choice.
246-264	It is difficult to validate this section given that the metamodel is
not shown in UML.
251	Consider chaning "object" to "modeling element."
251-253	It is unclear based on this description and the description of
Aggregation Rules (section 5.2.2) why Assemble Types is needed.
254	Need blank line between the paragraphs.
254	Constraint Rueles is not shown in the metamodel.
258	It is unclear of why Taxonomy is capitalized if it is not in the
metamodel.
282	It is unclear why the work substitute is used in "Substitute
Information Entity."
281-282	What enforce the described action/behavior described in the first
sentence?
284-286	To what end does the activity serve?
291-293	To what end does the activity serve?
300	Consider using double quotes around library instead of single
quotes.
300-308	There needs to be some text that states that the contextual values
are just values of various properties/attributes in an corresponding
business process model.
310	What is an "industry grouping?"
311	Why is Basic capitalized?
311	Consider change "do not have" to "cannot be represented using."
321-323	Consider replacing "ought to" with "should."
337	Define "single use" or choose a better phrase.
339	I would think that there is a good chance that the equivalents will
have the same name but always a different identifier.
344	Consider replacing must with should.
348	Replace "were" with "have been."
351-353	What is the name of the process (approach) is being reference here?
356-368	Is there any reason why colons are being used?
371	I have not seen the acronym CCWG used before.
375-379	Is there a particular reason why the business processes must be core
business processes?  Note that ebXML has not defined an core business
processes.  There is a Catalog of Common Business document that has a
cross-reference indexed by common business processes.
375-397	While this is a very good description, it is missing concreteness
that can likely be found in the UMM Metamodel and the ebXML Specificaiton
Schema.  Consdider BP Metamodel elements like BusinessProcess,
MuliPartyCollaboration, BinaryCollaboration, BusinessTransaction, etc.
417	An example would be nice.
453-458	This does not follow the structure of the previous sections and the
definition/description does not have the same quality as the previous
sections.
480-485	This does not follow the structure of the previous sections and the
definition/description does not have the same quality as the previous
sections.
499-500	This does not follow the structure of the previous sections and the
definition/description does not have the same quality as the previous
sections.
504-505	Remove the first part of the sentence ("The ebXML Business Process
Methodology Guidelines, which is a specialization of the").
533	Should be section 6.9.1
537	Should be section 6.9.2
539-541	This sentence needs to be better explained.
549-657	Good example and explaination; but, it belongs in its own
section/sub-section.
566-586	It is unclear how BuyerParty manefests itself as a
document/component element.
602-618	It is going to be a little challenging (dare I write impossible?) to
use role values that are not captured during the business process modeling.
Carrier can be identified in a composite business process or a business
process that contains multiparty collaborations that include the carrier.
However, I'm not sure what happens with the employee role "Purchasing
Manager" if the role does not have an explicit reference in the modeled
business process.
674	Missing a title for the Appendix.  (And do Appendicies come before
or after sections 9, 10, and 11?)


Sincerly,
Brian Hayes
Commerce One. +1 (925) 520-4498

application/ms-tnef