Reg/Rep 1/20/2005: Comments on ebRS v3.0 Draft

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

[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 8.1.1.2] 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.