This is really coming along. I have a few comments:
- I agree with Proposal 3; that is, I think it's not necessary to try
and preserve CCTs somewhere in the model.
- Even though Proposal 4 makes clear the sense in which "aggregate RTs"
are in a controlled list, are we really advocating that there be a
closed list to which only a single organization can add? Even though
"Details" was rather, uh, unenlightening, I could see why having an
extension point there was useful.
- Proposal 6 could use an example or two.
- In Proposal 7, is it really necessary to give a different name to RT
properties, instead of just explaining how they should be considered
(regular) properties? This whole framework is starting to look more and
more recursive/elegant; why not encourage it in that direction even further?
- I love Section 4. Excellent stuff! It would be nice to have an
example within the text of Proposal 9, though.
- The diagram in Appendix A seems to have a broken callout attached to
Property. Also, is there still interest in breaking this out into two
diagrams, in order to separate out the XML connection?
Eve
Tim McGrath wrote:
> In response to the UN/CEFACT's Electronic Business Transition ad-hoc
> Working Group's (eBTWG) call for comments on their ebXML Core Components
> Technical Specification (see http://www.ebtwg.org/news/040402.html), we
> are attempting to prepare a consolidated response from UBL members based
> on our recent experiences with implmenting some of the concepts and
> rules indentified.
>
> Please find attached the current working draft of this response. If you
> would like to contribute or comment on our comments, then please do so
> within the next 48 hours using this list. We plan to discuss these
> responses at this week's NDR and LC subcommittee meetings. The date for
> submission to the eBTWG is Saturday May 4th.
>
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
