Re: Tr: Glossary

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

(Note: this will be rejected by the Architecture list.  Please repost it.)

Anders,

The CPA-CPP specification uses only the term "Party" in normative text.
Except for a few typos that I just marked for correction, the string
"Partner" is used only as follows:

   Occasionally in the introductory material (sections 4-6) and mainly in
   the phrase "Trading Partner Agreement" when "Partner" is appropriate in
   the context of the paragraph.

   When it cites a URL that contains the word "Partner".

   When it refers to the name of the TP team.

   When it refers to an element in the Process Specification document (BP
   Specification Schema spec) whose name contains the string "Partner".

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



anders.grangard on 03/16/2001 10:43:26 AM

To:   ebXML-Architecture List <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebXML
      SC, List server" <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  Tr: Glossary



Attached you will find the latest update of ebXML glossary. Thank you Colin
for your thorough review.

Anders

 ----------
 De : Colin Barham[SMTP:Colin.Barham@tie.nl]
 Date : jeudi 15 mars 2001 19:42
 A : 'Anders Grangard'
 Objet : Glossary

  <<ebxml_ta_glossary0.96.xls>>
 Anders
 Here is the new glossary. I have split it into 2 now. the second one
contains the discarded terms. It also contains terms which although
 supplied by the groups appear to be to generic a term to be defined by one
group.

 We also have the problem of undefined terms. A very good example is the
party, partner problem. It has been pointed out that party is defined
 but partner isn't. However when reading the CPA-CPP spec these terms are
used interchangeably and appear to mean the same thing (for example Section
6.1 lines 106-126). This therefore needs to be sorted within group, not by
me I feel. I can point out the inconsistencies but do not feel it is my job
to correct them.

 Another example is 'basic core component' and 'basic information entity'.
Both appear within 10 lines of each other in the ebXML
 Methodology for the Discovery and Analysis of Core Components Spec (lines
249 & 258).

 I also have a problem with the identifier, unique identifier and UUID. The
CC team have also used the term Information Identifier which
 also acts like a unique identifier. It is almost impossible to align these
since it appears that have different contextual meanings in there
locations.
Often they are stated as to what they are in situ. My solution to this is,
perhaps, remove identifier and keep UUID and Unique Identifier since these
can both be distinguished using the TA spec definition on when they are to
be used. With the Information Identifier and Identifier problems perhaps we
should refer this back to CC. Also Anders bare in mind since I wasn't in
Vancouver some new terms have been added and some may now be obsolete
without me realising.

 Another question is do we need the UML terminology in the glossary. I have
removed some of the terms but not all. Perhaps need some
 clarification is needed on this.

 I have dealt with the problem of the description section being confusing.
This is now called definitions with the extraneous information
 placed in the comments on defintions column.

 Another outstanding problem is the Object Oriented Approach definition. I
don't think it's needed so have placed in removed
 spreadsheet. However if it is it's not really got a definition. Do you
know
where we can get a definition for this?

 Need a reference for Open-edi definition.

 Is Process needed in the context of the definition?

 Couple of registry terms I can't find. I don't have reg specs so could be
in them. Can you check for me?

 Anyway I still feel there needs to be lot more work put in to do the cross
checking of synonym terms. If the work that I have done is on the
 right track I'd be happy to continue doing it although this is almost
becoming a quality control exercise now and is taking a lot of time.
 Therefore please read both spreadsheets and I'll ask Stuart who is part of
the QR team to have a look at them aswell

 Cheers

 Colin

 Anders I'm going to send each spreadsheet file seperately. Tried to zip
them but my Winzip appears to be playing up.