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

[Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

Bill,

Snipping where I've no further comment:

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

Shall we make this a dependent issue ? - I merged the existing conformance
issues (26 and 87) by making 26 depend on 87 (the direction was arbitrary),
to better reflect how many outstanding issues there were.

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

Figure 9 is an interaction diagram, and figures 10, 11 and 13 state
diagrams, for the whole lifecycle, so they do include the termination. We
don't have an interaction one showing cancels though, or a cohesion's mixed
outcome.

Sanjay: do you want to do some more ? I/Tony can do some.

> 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.

trouble with interaction diagrams is knowing when to stop :-)  OSI TP had
something like 200, (i.e. near the size of our entire document).


> 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!

thank you.

Document's not 100% consistent on -ise and -ize actually.  (How do people
from Noo Joisy spell "wise" and "otherwise" ?) :-)

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

Spec doesn't actually compare itself with ACID, I think (ACID does not
appear to be in it at all)