[regrep] FW: [Fwd: UEB 0.5 Readiness Opinion] -- Contains RegistryIssues

[Zachary Alexander <zack2@cris.com>]

All,

I don't know if everyone has seen this email. I am sorry if you have already
received it. But, it contains information that I thought might lead to
future work.

zack

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:57 PM
To: ebtwg-eba@lists.ebtwg.org
Subject: [Fwd: UEB 0.5 Readiness Opinion]


Forwarded as per Brian Hayes wish.

Duane

-------- Original Message --------
 Subject: UEB 0.5 Readiness Opinion
    Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:11:35 -0700
    From: "Brian S. Hayes" <brian.hayes@UCLAlumni.net>
Reply-To: <brian.hayes@UCLAlumni.net>
      To: "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>

 Duane,I would have posted this to the list, but I am not a member and
cannot subscribe directly.I believe that the ebtwg-eba team has done
very good work.  However, I believe the document is not ready for eBTWG
review for the following reasons:1) Need to be clear when text is
talking about an enerprise business process and a collaborative business
process.  John and I discussed that "Business Process" is an overused
term and thus qualifiers are important in this document.2) No overview
diagram showing a b2b architecture; it needs to show at least two
trading partners plus EDI components plus XML+Internet components + plus
FAX and phone.3) Does not show a BPSS (or equivalent) pointing directly
to a business document specification (e.g. XML Schema)4)
Introduces the term, Business Process Schema, when in context should
probably be "collaborative business process specification."  It is
important to keep a clear distinction between instances (e.g.
specifications, models) and the structural or semantic definitions (e.g.
schemas).5) Inappropriate use of the term Business Collaboration.6) Does
not talk about the creation of syntax specific document schemas.  Also,
I think their binding to logical models may be overlooked.7) Does not
talk about the Business Libaries, Common [collaborative] Business
Process Catlogs, and Core Component Catalogs (probably best named
Business Information Entity Models and Schema Catalogs). ==> It more
important to talk about the business level components of the
architecture than technical implementations like the Registry.  The
Registry spec is only interesting because it provides a common way of
building libraries/catalogs.8) Incorrectly states that there is no
runtime access to the registry.  There can be local and remote
registries.  There is no reason that a BSI local registry cannot serve
as a cache of information in a global registry as well as a store of
private information.9) Role and requirements of application layer not
described.10) Role and requirements of BSI layer (which is part of
application layer) not clearly described.11) The relationship of the
three components on the right of Figure 5.4.1 (Business Collaboration
Manager, Business Process Execution Engine, and Messaging Service) is
questionable. I would be happy to attend an architecture teleconference
to discuss my issues.  Please send me an email directly to let me know
the date and time.Sincerely,Brian Hayes


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>