Re: BP specification and documents submitted to QR

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>]

Tim,
A request for clarification on a couple of the QRT issues against BP
SpecSchema:

12	4/3	QRT	Line 369 and 536	“two” should be “more”. NB not confined to two
flows. (Is QRT pointing out an assumed errata, or is this a proposal for a
design change? A Business Transaction MUST in fact have either one or two
Document Flows associated with it, never zero, never more than two. Perhaps
the misuderstanding is that a BinaryCollaboration certainly can have more than
one (or two) business transactions, each with one or two docuement flows.
Unless there is something else behind this issue, I will flag it as "no change
required".)

27	4/3	QRT	Line 734-736	A CPA need not use an ebXML business process. ebXML
can be incrementally adopted.	 28	4/3	QRT	Line 737	“must” should be “could”
(see point above).	

Is the intent of these two issues to assert that an ebXML CPA need not refer
to any business-process-specfication at all, or that an ebXML CPA may refer to
some non ebXML business-process-specfication (or both)? I am corresponding
with TP team about this, but wanted to know the intent of the issue.

thanks,
-karsten