[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Reg/Rep 1/20/2005: Comments on ebRS v3.0 Draft
[general] spell check carefully [general] Should we consider breaking out the SAML profile similar to how WS-Security OASIS has approached the use of token profiles? One editorial motivator for asking this is the document is getting very long. Some of the specialized, advanced functions could be held in separate documents/appendices/etc. [page 14, sections 1.4.1 or 1.4.2] [current] 1. Given we've defined WSDL for the registry, should we also cite the WSDL v1.1 reference? [Section 5.6.14] ReferencesExistException is: "that is is" should be: "that it is" [page 51, Section 6.2-future] When we start to think about how the registry may be used in support of actual business processes, the importance of transactionality and state alignment/assurance become more important. Should we consider a constraint that transactionality capabilities may be required if query functions are used under certain circumstances (such as in the case of business content used in a business message for a business transaction)? [general-future] As the use of the registry expands to different functional areas, here are some thought areas: For example, the registry may be used to notify a party Buyer (such as a subscriber to a catalog) that a package of application products have been updated with three new components. That update could trigger a service that actually creates a new product catalog sent to an existing customer. In this case, the registry (roughly speaking) serves as a subparty in the process. Or, even more closely, the registry may be used in an actual business transaction pattern. For example, in an ebBP description, a Buyer queries a Seller via a service (which can be done now with OperationMapping) if it has product A with X, Y, Z capabilities. The query could actually be through the registry. The notification may be the response with the relevant data to the Buyer. I've not actually though this through so be kind in your response. In that case, specific requirements may be levied on the BT pattern (query-response, as such) that it is reliable, secure and received in xx time, and whether SOAP can fulfill that requirement. [page 73, Section 184.108.40.206] On validation of Business Processes, separate business content referenced in business process, from business process instance structrure, from business process instance itself, and the rules a partner assumes that the business process instance itself adheres to (which may be a business agreement, legal constraint, a particular businesses corporate practices, etc). I am uncertain how the registry would make the semantic checks without other tooling. An explanation would be helpful. In lieu of an explanation, here is change suggestion: from: Content validation may be used to enforce consistency rules and semantic checks whenever a Business Process is submitted to the registry. This feature may be used by organizations such as UN/CEFACT, OAGi, and RosettaNet. to: Business process instance validation may be used to enforce consistency rules and semantic checks whenever a Business Process is submitted to the registry. This feature may be used by organizations such as UN/CEFACT, OAGi, and RosettaNet.