ebBP 5/2/2005: Primer or Best Practices Document (Abela)

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

In late April, Jesmond Abela forwarded several editorial changes to me, 
which can be considered for integration in a v2.0x Committee Draft. I've 
included those comments herein. Other than the comments, Jesmond 
suggested we talk about a primer or implementation guidelines for ebBP 
v2.0 (last comment in the note extracted below). This clearly fits in 
with our desires to talk about test assertions and interoperability 
testing. Let's address in tomorrow's call.

Thanks everyone and to Jesmond who will attend the 3 May call. Regards.

>>Abela: Hi Monica,
>>I am trying to grasp the contents of the package, it's a lot of work 
>>that has been compiled into the BPSS 2.0, and still need some time to 
>>get business concept "straightened out". It would be very helpful to 
>>study a set of examples, that reflect a "real-life" scenario.
>>
>>Anyway, I might contribute a little bit, perhaps from some observation 
>>that I have noticed as follows:
>>
>>In the document "oasis-ebxmlbp-2.0-spec-cd-candidate-12.doc" after figure
>>    
>>
>4. the following sentence:
>
>"Business Two or more business partners participate in the Business 
>Collaboration through roles. "
>
>The word "Business" can be removed! 
>
>mm1: Thanks, will correct.
>
>>In Appendix B:Sample XML Business Signals
>>
>>The Tag bpssignal:ReceiptAcknowledgment is incorrect, should be 
>>bpssignal:ReceiptAcknowledgement
>>
>mm1: Same.
>
>>Abela: In the signals schema definition
>>"oasis-ebxmlbp-signal-2.0-schema-cd_candidate.xsd"
>>
>>The XML document is malformed:
>>
>>	<xsd:complexType name="SignalIdentificationInformation">
>>		<xsd:annotation>
>>			<xsd:documentation>
>>		      <xsd:documentation>This defines the content 
>>     		... RequestingBusinessActivity or 
>>     		the RespondingBusinessActivity.
>>     		</xsd:documentation>
>>		</xsd:annotation>
>>
>>One "<xsd:documentation>" should be removed
>>
>mm1: Same.
>
>>Abela: I have noted that some of the BPSS instance examples, point to a 
>>different schema then the one included in the package, i.e.
>>"oasis-ebxmlbp-core-2.0-schema-cd_candidate.xsd", I realise that this 
>>is a candidate release, nonetheless, I suppose there should be 
>>consistency, in the final document/examples.
>>    
>>
>mm1: This was to be corrected, on all accounts, when we had a clear
>understanding what the OASIS reqts for the schema and namespace were.
>Same.
>
>>Abela: Well I realise these may be somewhat trivial issues, I do have some 
>>more questions/observations but I prefer to get a better grasp of the 
>>BPSS schema 2.0 concepts. It could be helpful if the author/s compile a "best practice" guidelines when compiling a ebBP definition, e.g. define BT patterns first, then re-use them in Business Collaborations, when/how to use packages, etc.
>>    
>>
>mm1: This likely would be an exercise to approach when we reconvene in our
>next meeting. Typically such guidelines are outside of the technical
>specification and can be: guidelines, technical notes, white papers, etc.
>Would you like to participate in such an endeavor?
>
>We will meet again 3 May 2005. Could you attend that meeting? Thanks,
>Jesmond for taking the time to contact us. Please do provide your more
>detailed comments. Thanks.
>  
>