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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

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

Subject: Re: [regrep] Reg/Rep 1/20/2005: Comments on ebRS v3.0 Draft

Hi Monica,

Thanks for you good suggestions.

Monica J. Martin wrote:

> [general] spell check carefully

Auto spell check is hard/tedious due to many technical terms used in the 
document. So I request people send in any mistakes they find as they 
find them with proper line number + serach string references.

> [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.

It is a good idea but too late IMO for version 3. Lets consider for 
version 4.

> [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?

This may make sense for version 4.
WSDL is not used as prevalently as XML Schema in the specs so personally 
I think we could
cut scope and leave it as is for version 3.

> [Section 5.6.14] ReferencesExistException
>    is: "that is is"
>    should be: "that it is"

Fixed. Thanks.

> [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.

We discussed transaction support in last con call. Currently each RS 
request is a separate transaction. In version 4 we plan to add ability 
to define multiple tgransactions within one request and possibly single 
transaction spanning multiple requests. I suggets we make no change in 
version 3 regarding transactions.

> [page 73, Section] 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.

Above text loses any mention of Content Validation feature of the 
registry which is what the text is *ALL* about. Suggest we stick with 
original text for that reason.

The idea is that the Content Validation feature provides a plugin 
capability which can be used to plug in any web service that knows how 
to validate the specific type of content (e.g. BPSS).


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