OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-bp-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Public Comment

Comment from: radha.arur@polaris.co.in

Name: Radha Arur
Title: AVP
Organization: PSLL
Regarding Specification:

Feedback on ebxmlbP ver 2.0 

Good points:
1. The distinction between Collaboration, Message  AND the interaction and dependancies between Business Process Interface and Message Interface are very well articulated. 

2. The definition of  types of Gateways and the distinction between Binary and Multiparty collaboration are very clearly defined. 

Suggestion for improvements:
1.Though the distinction and the dependencies between BSInterface and MSInterface are defined, it is not clearly specified (though suggested) how the MSI can be used without BSI.  i.e Does the BSI remain redundant in that situation? 

2.Relation with other specification  
    i.e how the CPA and CVV should interact with CQI  Customer Information Quality TC recommendated work?  

3. CPA actually specifies the interface with access points defined by the business process specification. Elaboration / clarification on  this sentence? Does it mean BSI is CPA? 

4. Rules for the Collaboration Monitoring engine is left too much to the discretion of the application and has not specified any framework or guideline and may also take input how this interacts with F2F activity.  i.e How the messaging and collaboration layer work together is not specified or not easily tracable. 

5.Distinction between Business message and signal and the relation with BSI may be explicitly mentioned. 

6. The difference between Substantive business message and normal business message since both refers to the same in many situations. 

7. Explanation of Relevance of state synchronization and state alignment may need to be mentioned.

8.Relationship to repository is very much at abstract level. May/ should  provide a better implementation recommendation. 

9. A sample implementation on how the specification can be used between applications in the organization (especially for a complex business transaction ) with the use of Fork, Decision and Joint Gateway will be really useful. 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]