Comments on BP MetaModel draft

[Bill Chessman <bill.chessman@sfo.harbinger.com>]

I've been looking over the BP Metamodel draft entitled, "Second Draft Business
Process Project Team Technical Specification Document" (Draft Version 2.0
6/23/00) and I have some comments.  Actually they are questions which may annoy
because they are fairly general so it's difficult to give page and line number
or recommended actions for resolution (though I'll try my best where possible). 
For those inconveniences I apologize in advance.

1. Is there any further work to be done on the Automobile Component Procurement
example provided?  Specifically, in the inclusion of other diagrams, I would
wonder if activity diagrams might be helpful.  While I can see who/what
interacts with who/what, based on the use cases and I can see how objects would
fit together, I still have no feel for how the process (scenarios?) proceed, or
what decisions and controls might be expected.  Also, In the collaboration
diagrams, I'm not seeing much on how the objects collaborate.  (I'm relatively
new to UML and UMM, so maybe I'm missing something or failing to understand
that which is probably basic...?)

2. I'm trying to understand the role of the Business Process Metamodel.  Since
a metamodel defines the language of a model (hope I got that right), would it
be safe to say that this metamodel will actually provide a template or
guideline by which all ebXML-based models will be created/designed?

A few more specific comments (probably already made by other contributors):

1. Boy, oh boy, the terminology is confusing me.  Operating, as I have been, on
the assumption that ebXML's foundation is based largely on UN/CEFACT's TMWG
work (most specifically, the document known as N090 which discusses the "next
generation" of electonic business, sometimes called "OO-edi"), the term
"scenario," to me, at least, refers to a defined process consisting of one or
more interactions and exchanges of data between trading partners toward a
specific transactional goal.  Sure wish there was another word to use when
talking, for example, about "Scenarios for Use of the ebXML Business Process
Metamodel", etc.  Maybe I should just throw N090 away?

2. Line 469:  The opening sentence begins: "It must be support the
definition..."  That probably ought to be "It must support the definition..."

3. Line 625:  Is "adaption" a word?  I thought it was "adaptation."  If not, is
it supposed to be "adoption?"

Thanks in advance for your patience in asking my (possibly uninformed)
questions.

Best regards,
Bill Chessman