Re: ebXML Requirements Specification 0.2

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

Scott,

Thanks for the comment.  Yes, we took your content from
http://objectrepository.homepage.com/BusReq.html

In general, we have adopted the following outline for the normative sections of
the document:

High Level Requirements of an ebXML Application Environment (Section 2)
Detail Requirements of an ebXML Application Environment (Section 3)
Requirements on ebXML Guidelines (Section 4)

We have been working with this breakdown so that sections 2 and 3 describe what
it is we hope to allow developers to build.  These sections describe the
behavior and attributes of the whole system in which ebXML "standards" are
used.  These sections are all about business requirements, and some detailed
technical requirements supporting the business requirements.  These requirements
break down into functional and non-functional.  Section 4, on the other hand,
deals with specific attributes or features of the guidelines themselves.   This
approach is one thing that our team will be discussing next week, but for now it
is the one we are using.  Since most of the submitted and posted requirements
don't fit well into this framework (they often talk about strategy and solutions
as well) getting the relevant content into this document organization has not
been easy.

Regarding your team's posting,  I think in this context that most of your
content on "Business Requirements" is appropriate to Section 3.  It is also
listed not just as functional requirements, but as non-functional requirements
as well.   Since we are focusing on high level requirements, I think the content
you have posted is appropriate for the Requirements Specification.  The section
is rough and needs some work, but I think it is mainly on target.

Regarding the workflow activities, please be aware that at this point we are
trying to stay high level, except for where teams have already developed detail
requirements.   We seek to have the document ready to submit for full ebXML
review on Friday, so I don't think we necessarily want a lot of work that you
develop next week.  It may be that you want even less detail in our document
than is present in the current version.  These are things we will want to
discuss with you in our joint meetings next week.

Mike

"Nieman, Scott" wrote:

> Mike,
>
> After looking at the registry and repository requirements stated in this
> document, I would like to clarify that what we posted on our interim web
> site (http://objectrepository.homepage.com) were "Business Requirements"
> which you have interpreted as "Functional Requirements".  From a UML
> respective, I interpret the (short term) functional requirements to be, at
> minimum, statements regarding the workflow activities that fulfil the
> business requirements.  Long term, they will be deeper than just the
> workflows, specifically detailing the scenarios that describe the
> interactions between objects and the physical registry and repository
> instance(s).  Our Use Case modeling exercise will provide us the workflow
> activities, which will be useful in your document.  This is part of next
> week's work effort.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 11:28 AM
> To: sutor@us.ibm.com
> Cc: duane@xmlglobal.com; plevine@telcordia.com; Bill.French@sun.com;
> lms@wwnet.com; drummond@onramp.net; scott.nieman@norstanconsulting.com;
> annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com; rachelf@ix.netcom.com;
> klaus@templar.net; raywalker@attglobal.net; bill.smith@sun.com;
> Dick.Raman@cab-edi.net
> Subject: ebXML Requirements Specification 0.2
>
> Folks,
>
> Here is the requirements team's working draft.  My hunch is that we will not
> try to seek final approval next week under the defined consensus procedures.
> However, I expect that we will be ready to present a version for final
> approval
> on Friday, with final voting taking place at the Brussels meeting.
>
> The attachment is in MS Word 97 format, text, and HTML  We hope to
> distribute
> future drafts in Docbook format.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/