RE: Comments on ebXML Methodology: Core Components Discovery andAnalysis

["Blantz, Mary Kay" <mblantz@netfish.com>]

Hi William,

The editors need to cut and paste into columns when they receive
comments in the way you submitted them.  A format would just make
their work easier.

As for finding places that we missed changing functional set, that's
probably my fault for not proofreading more carefully.  Thanks for
telling us.

Message has been chosen for the entire transaction, including the
'envelopes', so it would be confusing to use it.  I have some 
concern about the word document, since we are not only going to be
developing XML from the syntax neutral CCs.  Payload might work,
what do you think?

MK

-----Original Message-----
From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 2:46 PM
To: ebXML Core
Subject: Re: Comments on ebXML Methodology: Core Components Discovery
andAnalysis


Mary Kay Blantz suggested that if I really wanted my comments to be
processed, I will need to submit them using the proper form.

There is no form. But there is a *format* suggested at
http://www.ebxml.org/specdrafts/specs_for_review.htm.  I did include for
each item in my comments: (1) Line Range the comment is against, (2) a
Comment, (3) [Rationale] for the comment, and (4) Suggestion for change.

Just take my first one:

   Line 210 now shows the new name for what appears to be a
   business message: "Logical Family."  It was once a Functional
   Set.   In order to not confuse people, might I suggest simply
   calling a business message a "Business Message"?

Unless I'm missing something, all the important items are there.  (1)
The Line is 210.  (2) My comment regards the confusion of a new name
"Logical Family" in place of "Functional Set." (3) the rationale is not
to confuse people, and finally, (4) my suggestion is to call it a
"Business Message."

I appreciate that editing a document is an extremely difficult job and
I'm willing to be as complete and as exact as possible.  But give me a
break - please don't make this as complicated and hide-bound a process
as filling out a Foresight expense report.  If my suggestion to rename
"Logical Family" to "Business Message" is well-received, then I would
expect the editor to locate all occurrences himself and make the
changes.  By the way, I can live with Bob Haugen's suggestion to use
"Business Document" instead of  "Business Message" - this is completely
natural as we are used to talking about XML "documents."

So, why does "Functional Set" continue to appear at lines 517 through
520?   Or all throughout the ebXML Concept - Context and Re-Usability of
Core Components spec (March 23, 2001) Version 1.02? Is this "Functional
Set" the same thing we're talking about? If so, should this suggestion
be ignored simply because I failed to include all the line numbers and
the rationale or suggested change - which would obviously be to change
all occurrences of  "Functional Set" to "Logical Family," or whatever is
the term du jour.

William J. Kammerer
FORESIGHT Corp.
4950 Blazer Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"accelerating time-to-trade"




------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org