Re: [business-transaction] Model section vote closed April 11(tommorrow)!

[William Cox <william.cox@bea.com>]

My comments/votes on the issues listed in the "default vote" closing April 11, 2002.

First, I'd like to say that a number of this issues were not and could not be
closed by the NON-NORMATIVE model section, so on principle I should probably  object
at least on the non-editorial issues.

Second, in the interest of progress, I've read the 0.95 draft, and I'd like to  echo
other comments that this is miles (or kilometers) ahead of 0.9 with which I had so
many issues.

SUMMARY of my votes:

Reassert Issue 25 until conformance is cleared up (and it's almost there)

Reassert Issue 66 until interaction and state diagrams for termination protocol are
as clear as the rest.

DETAILS::

Issue 24: I'm now happy (mostly) with the model exposition and section.  It
still needs more interaction diagrams; the state diagrams are very useful.  A
state diagram for the hazard and termination sections would be useful.

Issue 25: The title of the issue doesn't quite say what the proposed remedy is,
to wit: "Define conformance so that "core conformance" is all and only what is
needed for atomic. Creating separate sections for Atomic BTP and Cohesion BTP
would clarify. Ensure that Atom can stand alone."  Since we're still talking
about the conformance area, and I'm not entirely happy yet, I reassert this
objection even though my goal is to continue to deal with the conformance issue
only.

Issue 27: Well, Draft 0.9 is STILL opaque and difficult to read and to
understand (and will be forever  :-)  ).  Draft 0.9.5 is NOT.  I'd like to thank
Peter as editor and the rest of the group for the focus on readability and
understandability; this really has come quite close to my goal...of course,
"centre" still isn't spelled right!

Issue 66: The model section needs more diagrams for the termination protocol -
we're billing this as a termination solution, after all.  I would say this still
needs doing. Still and editorial issue, should be reasserted.

Issue 73: I couldn't find text that satisfied this issue from Pyounguk. Hope
he's happy.

Issue 76: We've moved beyond this issue; the remaining (largely editorial)
issues are about the explanatory material, NOT its absence.

Issue 88: I'm reasonably happy that Geoff's objection has been satisfied.  Hope
he's happy too.

bill cox


William Z Pope wrote:

> This is a reminder that any comments on the closing of the issues addressed
> in the model section are due by your local midnight on April 11.  Have a
> read through the model section in 0.9.5.  It is a higher level introduction
> and description of BTP.
>
> original email can be found at:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200204/msg00009.html
>
> Document can be found at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/business-transactions/documents/2002-04-03
> .BTP_draft_0.9.5.doc
>
> Thanks,
> BT TC Chair
>
> William Z Pope
> zpope@pobox.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

Attachment: william.cox.vcf
Description: Card for William Cox