on behalf of Marty.
/Stefano
� -----Original Message-----
� From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:[email protected]]
� Sent: 20 January 2001 00:03
� To: Stefano POGLIANI
� Cc: Duane Nickull; [email protected]; [email protected];
� 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.
�
� "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.
�
� 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..."
�
� 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.
�
� One of the technical editors should review this with regard to English
� syntax and word usage.
�
� 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 <[email protected]> on 01/18/2001 04:22:38 AM
�
� To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Duane Nickull <[email protected]>
� cc: [email protected], [email protected], ebXML-Architecture List
� <[email protected]>
� 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
� � ******************************************************************
� � *******************
� �
� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
