[ebxml iic] 4/19/2004: Comments (Not to Delay Version Vote)

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

These items are only suggestions for discussion for the next version and 
not being required for inclusion or against the vote cast.

Section 3.1.1
Can not assume an XML payload particularly as many communities are still 
using EDI.
Section 5.4
Partial runtime coverage may be representative of a profile. I am not 
certain we have agreed on conformance profiles. Perhaps they are 
specialized conformance profiles that evidence the minimum restrictions 
placed on test execution by the regional or trading partner environment. 
Even so, a sector may determine that the scope
of testing was sufficient per their profile to signify the test case as 
fully tested.
Section 6
May consider in the future requiring the name of the Test Profile to be 
unique, because it may be discovered and with less technical types 
queried against the name. Note we are seeing this artifact 
referenceability and visualization becoming important in ebBP and I 
think it would also apply to the test profiles and other artifacts.

General
The workflow constructs still are of concern as the functionality 
continues to expand. Again, I think we should rely on defined constructs 
rather than recreating our own.