RE: updated requirements specification

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

I agree.  However with the distributed process that we now have, syncing on
anything is not easy.

 I keep hearing that there is an ebXML glossary.  That could solve the
terminology sync problem but: Where is it?  Who maintains it? Where does
one find it?

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



"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 10/19/2000 08:57:11 PM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>,
      ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, dan@vcheq.com
Subject:  RE: updated requirements specification



Scott

With your suggested change of definition of "Party" to "an entity such as a
company, department, organization or individual." We are really beginning
to
go down a rat hole.

The whole purpose of creating a set of definitions for TRP was to avoid
precisely the debate we have just got into.

I strongly suggest that: a) if we have a definition that has been used and
accepted by several parts of ebXML for a period of time then b) other teams
should adopt it, otherwise we will be in endless, non-productive
"definition
churn".

When new groups come along they really, really should try and build on the
work done by other groups and not unilaterally change definitions because
of
the huge confusion it causes.

Regards

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:59 AM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Cc: Burdett, David; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; dan@vcheq.com
Subject: RE: updated requirements specification


To add more to definitions/terminology since it is a current topic...
Focusing at the top........

>>>4.     Party. A Party is an entity such as a company, department,
organization or individual that can generate, receive or relay Documents.
5.   Partner. A Partner is a Party that can engage in transactions with
another Partner. <<<

Concerning the highest notion, ...Party,
I'm generally not thinking so specific about Party as above. In my mind, I
would stop at
"Party: A Party is an entity such as a company, department,
organization or individual."

A Party is not ebXML specific.

So,first we base common notions such as ebXMLIdentifiable (cumulative rule)
for *anything* in ebXML that has identity.

If you buy into this so far, and then push this thinking further,
we then have InvolvedebXMLParty, which is also an
ebXMLIdentifiable (You can not participate in ebXML without some
identity). InvolvedebXMLParty then becomes the top notion in ebXML for
"entities such as a company, department,organization or individuals".

This allows ebXML to fit into other worlds that use plain old "Party".
Then we further specialize to Partners, etc, beyond that.

Over-Engineered, or too "pure" for what it is worth?

PS:
And like "Object", which should disappear ebXML,
I would like the overloaded term "transaction" to go away also.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 10/19/2000 12:21:32 PM

To:   "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, dan@vcheq.com
Subject:  RE: updated requirements specification




David,

The appended contains some very good suggestions.

Here are my replies.

Regards,
Marty

(See attached file: TP Definitions MWS Resp.doc)

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

*********


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

*********




"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 10/18/2000 01:00:56 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:   dan@vcheq.com
Subject:  RE: updated requirements specification



I know that ...
a) I raised the issue about the confusion in terminology between Party and
Partner, and
b) I couldn't make the F2F to suggest that we stay with Party
... but the current requirements document is very wooly on definitions.
Specifically  it says in items 3 and 4 ...

>>>4.     Party. A Party is an entity such as a company, department,
organization or individual that can generate, receive or relay Documents.
5.   Partner. A Partner is a Party that can engage in transactions with
another Partner. <<<

What is not defined anywhere as far as I can see is what is meant by
"transactions". The word is used in the opening paragraph as in ...

>>>a Trading Partner is an entity that engages in commercial transactions
with other Trading Partners<<<

One of the cardinal rules, IMO, of definitions is that they should be
cumulative, i.e. you don't use a term until you have defined it. The
current
document is circular in that Collaborative Process uses CPA before we've
defined it, yet CPA relies on a definition of Collaborative Protocol that
depends on a definition of Collaborative Process.

This means that the definitions should be more along the lines of the
attached document.

Thoughts?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 2:39 PM
To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: dan@vcheq.com
Subject: updated requirements specification


Attached is our partner-requirements specification, updated per the
discussion at last weeks Face to Face meeting (described in the minutes).
As previously mentioned, Daniel Ling will immediately convert the format to
the official ebXML format and I will then begin the approval process.

This does not cut off discussion but it does assure that we have this
specification on the path to approval for the Tokyo meeting.  The results
of discussion of this version will be applied to a later version.

I have not marked the changes.  Last week's discussion resulted in many
small changes and a few significant ones.  It needs to be reviewed in full.
One particular change is that the term "Trading-Partner Agreement" is
re-introduced per the request of Klaus Naujok. A Trading-Partner Agreement
includes a Collaboration Protocol Agreement and higher-level business
information.

Regards,
Marty

(See attached file: partner-requirements.doc)

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



*********

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



*********