|
Hi John!
See my comment tagged as <Nikola>.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 6:31
PM
Subject: Questions from Brussels
Technical Architecture
- Many questions have
come up in the course of our sub-groups work over the past six months.
Anders made a good point in saying that these issues, which seem to be
continually swept under the rug, should be handled more formally and
thoroughly. What is happening with that?
- The global search mechanism is still undefined. How will such a global search work? How will users find particular
schemas to search upon? How will the
perform common core searches?
- How will
items in repositories be updated
when changes are made? What is the change mechanism?
- Should we not have
more UML designs in our document? Should these not form the basis of our
architecture? If so, we should have them now. Perhaps we should also follow
the Rational Method, as several other groups are doing.
- If we are building
this, or specing this, should we not follow the Rational Process and develop
the domain model and a complete
use case list for
requirements? So far we have not produced UML
models of the architecture. This seems remiss as UML is playing such a large
role in ebXML.
<Nikola>
It is
difficult to translate RUP artifacts, roles, workflows, ... into ebXML
project as it is now, esp. in the area of Technical Architecture. I do agree
with you that we need more Use Cases (more as a Usages not as Scenarious) and
UML diagrams - see first attachment in http://www.xml.org/archives/ebxml-architecture/2000/05/0014.html
and some other things as you mention in your post.
For now, I
am curious where is the latest version of the doc (as I recall we still need
to modify the TR&P diagram and to decide what to do with definitions in
that section; I am also not sure if we need to change anything else in other
sections).
</Nikola>
|
