[ebxml-iic] Monday June 3 meeting minutes

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>]

Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] speak in Barcelona?

Attached, for your review.

 

jacques

 

>  
Minutes of IIC telecon June 3rd, 2002
---------------------------------------------------
 
Call:
-----

Host: Fujitsu
Time: Monday, June 3, 10am PST
Toll free number: 1-877-801-2058
International Number:1-712-257-6652
Participant passcode: 309951

Present:
--------

Mike Kass (NIST)
Jaques Durand (Fujitsu)
Hima Mukkalama (Sybase)
Michael Wang (TIBCO)
Anne Fischer (Drummond Group)
Steve Yung (Sun)
Matt MacKenzie (XMLGlobal)
Sinha Prakash (IONA)
Monica Martin (Drake Certivo)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond)
Eric --- (Kinzan)
Rian --- (IPnet Solutions)
Yan Guo (webMethods)

Guests:
Fred --- (Sun)

Agenda:
-------

1. Milestones & deliverables. What do we communicate to MS TC?  (see details in Barcelona minutes)
2. Logistic issues: mailing sublists, next f-2-f (we have also a proposal for Vancouver, end August)
3. Status of work: 
- MS conformance (status of mark-ups for reqs, suite, cases, steps)(what is specific/not to MS? CPA data?)
- MS Interoperability (DGI tests integration?)
- the test framework (conformance + interop? how general beyond MS?)
4. Implementation Guidelines, (how about EAN impl guidelines?)
5. Other specifications (RegRep, BPSS) 

Minutes:
--------

1- Milestones & deliverables.

- We intend to submit to MS TC (July 1st, with prior submission to IIC TC mid-June):
(1) an exhaustive list of our test requirements for MS Conformance 
(Core + additional features). Each test item must be described in plain English, yet
be precise enough as to specify what the test execution will do. The deggree to which we
will cover each test item in our test framework will be indicated:
	(A) test items will be completely covered. (e.g. r1.1.3)
	(B) test items cannot be covered for all situations. Will be only checked for some typical
test cases. (r1.1.1, r1.2.6)
	(C) test items actually depends more on the application layer and behavior 
(e.g. r1.2.9, r1.2.14).
So will be checked very partially, in the test case context.
	(D) test items that simply cannot be formally tested at all. 
(2) (optionally) a sampling of Test Cases associated with the corresponding Test Requirements,
that show the detail of the test steps executed on the test framework. In plain English.

- By July 8th, we submit to IIC TC the three test specifications: 
(1) ebXML Test Framework, (2) MS COnformance Test Suite, (3) MS Interoperability Test Suite.


2- Logistic issues.

- Next f-2-f: sometime second half of August. we have three options:
(a) Vancouver, hosted by XMLGlobal (would be maybe August 22-23, to not overlap with Boston XML)
(b) Boston, hosted by OASIS, joined with XML Web Services One conference (August 26-30),
(c) Bay Area.

- mailing sublists: proposal by Matt to reshuffle:
|_ ebxml-iic-framework (conformance and interop framework, for all specs) 
|_ ebxml-iic-conform (conformance specific discussion, for all specs) 
|_ ebxml-iic-interop (interoperability specific discussion, for all specs) 
|_ ebxml-iic-comments (venue for test requirement comments to be sent 
The idea is that there is more commonality within each of these work thread
(e.g. conformance test case material across ebXML specs, or interoperability 
operations across ebXML specs), than within each spec. That would also
avoid too many lists, as we focus later our activity from MS to RegRep, BPSS,...
We'll make a decision on this next meeting.


3. Status of work: 

- MS conformance: (Mike, Matt) We are close to have full test Requirements.
In addition, a narrative of test cases for core MS conformance (level 1) 
is achievable by June 15th. It would specify which steps need be done, 
which Service/Action are invoked, refer to some message data/template.
- Monica is willing to review this work.
- MS Interoperability: Prakash / Steve came up with a first draft of detailed
Test Cases. Does not yet integrate DGI tests, but should not be a problem.
To review.
- Test Framework: Jacques revised the initial draft, with changes so that
framework more independent from MS testing, a single Test Driver is used 
(in both MS conformance and interoperability).
Test material (test reqs/case/step mark-up) still need be added (Mike will help)
More Service/Actions also needed for interop testing.

4. Implementation Guidelines.

- EAN International (www.ean-int.org, the European equivalent of UCC)
is endorsing ebXML, and have drafted  an EAN ebXML TRP implementation guidelines.
Jacques reviewed it. It appears that implementation, for EAN, is more about usage, 
and deployment guidelines for an ebXML MSH in an eBusiness context. 
We have to decide whether there is enough complementarity (yet common purpose)
with what we are doing, so that we could consider a cooperation. (Michael W.)

5. Other specifications.

- RegRep: there is activity in the TC to gather Test Requirements. A main
difference with what we do for MS, is that the message payload will need
analysis / manipulation. But that still fits our framework.
Lynn Gallagher (in RegRep) is working on that. Mike is also involved.
- Ann Fisher, our liaison for RegRep, will follow this and get Test Reqs.
Our immediate objective, is to factor these in our Test Framework, making
sure its design will support RegRep.
- CPP/A: Should be tested as a full specification by itself (Mike), e.g. schema
conformance. However, when testing other ebXML specs, CPA is not mandatory.
But a "representation" of CPA data is assumed. For testing that means we'll
have to assume a document that contain structured CPA data... CPA doc itself
should certainly be an option. More likely, a subset, with well identified XPath
notation for each attribute.
- Monica will follow RegRep and CPPA prototyping activities in Asia (with ECOM),
as some testing activity in these areas is likely to take place soon.

Reminders:
---------

- Next teleconference planned for June 17th, 10am PST.


Jacques Durand
ebXML IIC chair