terminology alignment

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>]

Marty,
Pardon my tardyness with these comments.
I was on vacation, and came home to an issues list of my own to address :-)

Here is a small set of terminology issues that should be addressed between the
CPP/CPA and BP Specification Schema documents: (based on revision 0.93 -
apologies if you have already addressed some of these issues)

1. Wherever you refer to an instance of the BP Specification Schema, please
refer to as a "Business-Process-Specification", not just a
"Process-Specification", including in figures.

2. Please change your internal reference to the BP Specification Schema
document from [BPMSPEC] to [BPSS] or if you prefer [BPSPEC]. The 'M' is likely
a left over reference to 'modeling' and is a source of much confusion (BPSS
vs. UMM etc.)

3. On figure 1. replace "Business Collaboration Protocol" with just "Business
Collaboration" or "BinaryCollaboration", depending on how generic/specific you
prefer the figure to be. The phrase "Business Collaboration Protocol" is a UMM
term, not an ebXML term.

4. I think you can replace the words "Collaborative Process" with "Business
Collaboration" everywhere (this change is a suggestion only). It would just
make it easier to map between the two documents, since "Collaborative Process"
is not a known term within BPSS (or UMM).

5. In lines 151, 435, and possibly elsewhere, I also recommend changing the
phrase "Business Process" to "Business Collaboration". Parties support
interaction through "Business Collaborations", not "Business Processes".

6. The term "action" in an override element is ambigous, it is unclear whether
it refers to a BusinessTransaction, or to a BusinessDocument (or something
else). In either case, we should not have a uniqueness issue.
BusinessTransactions and BusinessDocuments are unique within their package.
(See note about packages below).

Finally, an issue that may be more than terminology:

line 698: .... following sources in the Business Process Specification [BPSS]
that is referenced by the (Business)ProcessSpecification element depending
upon which element is the "root" (highest order) of the process referenced.

It is unclear if this is "root" in an xml sense, or "root" in a hierarchy of
BinaryCollaborations. In either case we may have a problem in that role names
are not required to be unique within a Business Process Specification. You
need to qualify the role reference like BinaryCollaboration/Role or
BinaryCollaboration/BusinessTransactionActivity/Role BinaryCollaboration names
are unique within a package. Package is a UML based mechanism for namespaces.
A BusinessProcessSpecification may have several packages within it.

-karsten