RE: comment on TA specification

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

(As usual, someone please post to the TA list.)

Stefano,

Regarding the following, it is not in the appendix.  Line 49 is near the
beginning of the TP chapter.

   » Line 499:  This refers to "business service interface requirements".
   I
   » don't understand this term.  The CPP has no explicit requirements on
   the
   » BSI.  Its requirements all relate to the applicable standards such as
   » business process, messaging service, and transport protocol.  I
   suggest
   » changing the sentence to "...to express their minimum business
   process,
   » message-exchange, transport, and security requirements..."

     Marty I did not find this in the Appendix. Could you please be more
     precise in order to locate 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
*************************************************************************************



"Stefano POGLIANI" <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 01/19/2001 06:27:53 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, <knaujok@home.com>,
      <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebXML-Architecture List"
      <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: comment on TA specification



Marty,

     thanks a lot for the comments. Find embedded some additional
considerations
and the new version of the appendix attached to this mail.

Enjoy the week end.

/Stefano

» -----Original Message-----
» From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
» Sent: 20 January 2001 00:03
» To: Stefano POGLIANI
» Cc: Duane Nickull; knaujok@home.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org;
» ebXML-Architecture List
» Subject: RE: comment on TA specification
»
»
»
» N.B.  this will be rejected by the Architecture listserver.
» Someone please
» post it there.
»
» Stefano,
»
» The High Level Business Scenarios replacement appendix attached to your
» email is considerably improved from the previous one.  I have only a few
» comments. Some of these relate to material in the base TA specification
» that relates to your appendix.

     thanks a lot.

»
» "Business Service Interface" appears many times in the TA specification
but
» I cannot find a definition there.  I know what it means from reading your
» white paper but most readers will not understand it.  Since the term
» "service interface" usually means the thin line between adjacent layers
in
» a stack such as the OSI communication model, it is very important to
» provide a definition of BSI here.  I believe that the definition
» should say that the BSI is a name for the middleware which supports B2B
exchanges,
» supports the CPA, and provides a bridge to each legacy application.
Perhaps
» you have a definition in the white paper that you can copy.

     I like your definition.
     It is also very compact and clear, so, for me it is OK.
     Again, since the term "Business Service Interface" is also used
several
times
     in other sections of the TA document, I would envisage that Duane and
Brian
     would acknowledge that this definition you gave is appropriate also to
     the other contextes.
     Then this definition should become part of the Glossary (and,
eventually,
     recalled in the introduction of the TA document)

»
» Line 499:  This refers to "business service interface requirements".  I
» don't understand this term.  The CPP has no explicit requirements on the
» BSI.  Its requirements all relate to the applicable standards such as
» business process, messaging service, and transport protocol.  I suggest
» changing the sentence to "...to express their minimum business process,
» message-exchange, transport, and security requirements..."

     Marty I did not find this in the Appendix. Could you please be more
     precise in order to locate it ?

»
» HIGH LEVEL BUSINESS SCENARIOS REPLACMENT TEXT
»
» The term "Commercial Transactions" should be replaced in several places
by
» "Business Transactions", which is the term now used by the BP team.

     I performed a global replace.

»
» One of the technical editors should review this with regard to English
» syntax and word usage.
»

     Please, forgive my poor english and my unsafe typing.

» 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
» ******************************************************************
» *******************
»
»
»
» Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 01/18/2001 04:22:38 AM
»
» To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Duane Nickull
<duane@xmlglobal.com>
» cc:   knaujok@home.com, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebXML-Architecture List
»       <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
» Subject:  RE: comment on TA specification
»
»
»
» Marty,
»
»      I found that many of the comments you highlight just map my list of
» comments.
» I would deal in this mail on the comments you made on the Appendix, since
» it
» was originally written by me. I have submitted a new version to
» Duane after
» the TA V1.0 was published to deal with some of the comments, but not
» everything you mention. Using your comments, I created a new
» version of teh
» Appendix which is attached here.
»
» Here below are my comments.
»
» Best regards
»
» /Stefano
»
» »
» » Line 1102 and following:  This appendix makes frequent use of the term
» TPP
» » (Trading Partner Profile).  The TA specification does not define the
» » difference between a TPP and a CPP and the TP team is not
» defining such a
» » (presumably higher level) document.  Please change TPP to CPP
throughout
» » this appendix.
»
»      I have done it.
»
» »
» » Line 1142:  As noted above, the CPA does not reference the relevant
TPPs
» » (i.e. CPPs).  Please delete this line.
» »
»
»      You are right. This was an inheritance of the understanding
» before the
»      f2f of the beginning of october. I actually removed the whole
» construct
»      which was saying :
»           The CPA references :
»                - the relevant TPPs
»                - the legal terms and conditions related to the exchange.
»      I removed this construct consistently in the appendix since it
» appeared
»      more than once.
»
» » Line 1143:  Please delete this line.  The CPA does not reference legal
» » terms and conditions in any architecturally meaningful way.  It
» » may provide a #PCDATA field for recording the ID of an associated legal
» contract, but
» » that is all.
»
»      You are right. See previous comment.
»
» »
» » Line 1144-1158:  These bullets relate to implementation, not to what
the
» » TPP (CPP) defines.  Please start a new "subhead" about implementation.
»
»      Actually, the formatting in the final document was lost. The
sentence
»      starting with "The partners implement..." actually starts a new
»      bullet.
»
» »
» » Line 1145 and elsewhere:  Please delete this line and other
» references to
» » Business Service Interface. I can't find a definition of such a
» construct.
» » It probably refers to the B2B middleware.  Perhaps one could
» say "obtains
» » the necssary middleware".
»
»      This reference appears more than once.
»      I may agree with you on changing the reference to the BSI with a
more
»      loose definition. But I found that the term "Business Service
» Interface"
»      appears many times in the TA document. For this reason I think that
»      it is not "something new".
»
»      At the moment I did not apply your proposed change in view of your
»      comment on this: let me know what you think.
»
» »
» » Line 1174-1175:  This statement appears to say that each trading
partner
» is
» » fully aware of the state of the entire process.  That is not
» correct.  At
» » this stage of the development of the CPA and its support software, each
» » partner is only aware of the state of its interactions with the other
» » partner in the CPA.  In this case, TP 1 knows only about the state with
» » respect to TP2, TP3 only knows about the state with respect to TP2, and
» » only TP2 is aware of the total state of the three parties.
»
»      I think this is what is written here. Probably the sentence
»
»      "The assumption is that the "state" of the entire Business Process
is
»      managed by each Trading Partner,..."
»
»      is the one that makes the confusion. But later in the same sentence
»      it is clearly said that :
»
»      "each Trading Partner is fully responsible of the commercial
» transaction
»      involving it..."
»
»      and the examples say that.
»
» »
» » Line 1201:  As noted above, the CPA does not reference the relevant
TPPs
» » (i.e. CPPs).  Please delete this line.
»
»      See previous comment.
» »
» » Terminology:  After extensive discussions, the TP team is consistently
» » using the term "Party" to denote the owner of a CPP and a participant
in
» a
» » CPA.  the TA team may wish to update the architecture document to
agree.
»
»      I tried to do in this new version. You may want to double
» check if the
»      "replace" did not go too deep
»
» »
» » 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
» » ******************************************************************
» » *******************
» »
» »
»
»
»
»
»
»