OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-stc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Summary of findings of TA Spec. review.



Please find below (and attached ) the summary of our issues with the TA
Specification.

More detailed notes are available on request to the QR Team.  We welcome
the opportunity to assist with clarification on any of these issues.


--------------------  START OF DOCUMENT ---------------------
ebXML Quality Review Group
 Summary of Review of
ebXML Technical Architecture Specification
Version:  (0.8.71) Release Date:  13/9/2000

Report Prepared: Sept 20, 2000

Edited by:  Nagwa Abdelghfour and Tim McGrath

Key points why we recommended this document not go for public review:

* This document does not define an Architecture  - where each of the
components of the system and their interactions or interface points are
clearly defined and put in context.  In some cases it tries to be a
Requirements Document and others a Design Specification.   For example,
it should not get into the details of the design of components (as in
the RegRep section).  That should remain with the respective project
team.

* Lacks HIGH-LEVEL Use Cases for the operability of ebXML compliant
applications.  In addition, the Use Cases are not complete in that they
fail to show the flow of actions.

* The document is uneven, dealing with minutiae in some areas and making
generalisation elsewhere.  For example, it is too focused on RegRep at
the expense of other issues.

* Editorially, there are sections that are either unnecessary or
unorganised or unclear.  We would expect the final document to be more
concise than this (ie. 83 pages).  In addition, some sections appear
incomplete and contain several "... to be discussed later ...", "...TBD
...", "... see section zzzz ...", etc.  This indicates the immaturity of
the document.

Some of these points may be acceptable in isolation but reflect the need
for further development.

More importantly, some points were raised at the previous document
review in San Jose and then subsequently by team members  yet they
still appear in this document.  This may indicate an endemic problem
with the documents development processes rather than a systematic one
in the approach used.

--------------------  END OF DOCUMENT ---------------------

--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

EbXML-QR-TA-Review-Sep20.doc

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:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC