Re: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 5/2/2005: Primer or Best Practices Document (Abela)

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Monica,

Time to re-visit on the tutorial work I started.

See draft PPT at http://visualscripts.net

Needs updating - but at least its a start point...

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>; "Jesmond Abela"
<jesmonda@maltanet.net>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 5/2/2005: Primer or Best Practices Document (Abela)


> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>