Re: Open Issues for TR&P Discussion in San Jose

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

All,

I would include a discussion on XML style conventions.
I know that Nikola and I prefer camel lowercase style
whereas initial work used camel uppercase style.

I think that Joe's recent postings raised some issues
which we'll want to discuss further as well.

I also think that we will want to reserve a block of
time to discuss the POC demo and get the participant's
feedback incorporated into packaging and header specs.

There was quite a lot of discussion on the POC list regarding
transport vs business level acks (where transport level is
the ebxml transport, not the physical transport). We should
resolve this once and for all.

Cheers,

Chris

David Burdett wrote:
> 
> Folks
> 
> From my scanning of the email lists, I think we also need to include ...
> 
> 8. Discuss and agree whether to have a separate transport envelope that
> allows the transport protocol to be swapped without changing the ebXML
> headers (see last email in the thread: RE: ebXML Proof of Concept Proposal
> v0.5. From Dale Moberg [ Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com
> <mailto:Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com> ] on Mon 07/31/2000 6:53 AM)
> 
> I've also made some comments on various emails that I have been catching up
> on that we might want to include.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:44 PM
> To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Open Issues for TR&P Discussion in San Jose
> 
> As discussed in this morning's TR&P telephone call, I have reviewed the
> email archives for threads/comments that were opened after the Burlington
> meeting and still seem open. Beyond an agenda of looking at the specific
> documents which will go out for public review (and the reliable messaging
> discussions), this list should be resolved in next week's meeting...
> 
> 1. Confirm distinction between and definitions of long- and short-lived
> conversations, their relation to BP models (see FW: Conversations, or BP
> alignment with TR&P and Architecture, From Bob Haugen
> <linkage@interaccess.com> on Sun, 2 Jul 2000)
> 
> 2. Confirm closure on comments to TRP Overview (see Review of comments on
> the requirements document., From ian.c.jones@bt.com on Thu, 20 Jul 2000)
> 
> 3. Close discussion on sub-service choreography (see Motivation for
> sub-service choreography?, From Joe Lapp <jlapp@webMethods.com> on Fri, 21
> Jul 2000)
> 
> 4. Review TR&P terms in the ebXML glossary out for review (see ebXML
> Glossary available for comments, From Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au> on
> Wed, 26 Jul 2000)
> 
> 5. Get consensus on use of Services in TR&P (see BusinessServiceInterface or
> ServiceInterface, From Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on
> Fri, 21 Jul 2000)
> 
> 6. Resolve version and charset attributes in envelopes and headers (see RE:
> Version 0.6 of the ebXML packaging spec is now ready forreview/comment, From
> Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com> on Fri, 28 Jul 2000)
> 
> 7. Discuss W3C XML Protocol Activity (see Re: FW: Call for Review: XML
> Protocol Activity Proposal, From Ralph Berwanger <rab7067@earthlink.net> on
> Mon, 31 Jul 2000)
> 
> The good news is that there are not a lot of open issues in the email lists.
> Maybe the bad news is that there are not a lot of open issues -- and we need
> more careful scrutiny of our documents, especially against each other for
> consistency!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> "the new kid on the block", Jim

-- 
    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903