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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg-comment message

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

Subject: Comments on AS4 Profile of ebMS V3 Version 1.0 Public Review Draft01

I'm offering these comments on your specification as a member of the OASIS Technical Advisory Board.

Comment numbers in square brackets. References are to the PDF.

[1] Editorial

This document needs a better abstract. The abstract to  Conformance Profiles Version 1.0 was better (though it was confusing on the "non-normative" nature of the profiles).

I know I should have looked up all of the references, but they don't occur until after the "Introduction" that tells me that "AS4...is intended to achieve the same functionality as AS2...." So my first thought was "what the heck is AS4? and what's AS2?". This needs to introduce the terms as well as the document. Please add a paragraph with (if necessary) forward references.

Line 186 the font for "[GZIP]" differs from the rest.

Section 1.2 The links are treated differently - see e.g. line 193 and compare typographically to 187.

Line 224: Would it kill too much toner to say "The AS4 Conformance Profile..."?

Line 269ff: Text has been turned into header or huge font.

Line 315:  "light client PROFILE"? this is a profile, so the word should be after "Client".

Lines 363-269 The font looks like it went crazy here.

I am puzzled that the editorial look-and-feel is very different between this and Conformance Profiles Version 1.0. Perhaps they could be better aligned, or if there's a convention that I'm missing, create a Typographical Conventions section is 1. (see SCA Assembly for one example, though an imperfect one).

[2] Technical

Section 4

The Usage Rules are very different typographically from the "Features set" in the other profile document I comment on, and different still from the Processing mode parameters (e.g.) on 257ff. The typography confuses the technical content; please correct, and try to use a consistent style across all of the TC's profiles. These share my comments elsewhere about the RFC2119 keywords and use, though you do a better job in this document.

[3] Technical

Is this one normative or not? It apparently is, but there's no conformance section as required by OASIS. Perhaps the mixed tables are intended as the conformance information, but there still needs to be a simple set of conformance clauses.

Thinking more about Conformance Profiles version 1.0, I'm concerned that without rationale that set of profiles is non-normative, and this one is? Why the difference? This should be clear in both documents, and conformance sections included.


bill cox
William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax

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