Re: ebXML metamodel write-up

[Christian Huemer <ch@ifs.univie.ac.at>]

since my first posting was rejected due to promlems in matching
my e-mail adresses, i forward it again to the bp list ...

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:48:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Christian Huemer <ch@ifs.univie.ac.at>
Subject: Re: ebXML metamodel write-up
To: ebxml-BP@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: un-tmwg@sfo.harbinger.com, duane@xmlglobal.com
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-MD5: Mbuk6Osbum685kWA6S21sA==

> Separately
> I had a discussion with Klaus Naujok about how pieces of the ebXML metamodel
> could be used independent of other pieces, so that people do not get the
> impression that being ebXML compliant is a daunting all or nothing
> proposition. 

klaus, can you please clarify this statement from karsten. is this really
true? 

i go with the second major comment from duane that was not discussed
so far on the list: "independence of sub-metamodels". they shoud not be 
independent at all. 

if karsten's statements are in regard to a demoproject, i think he is right.
you cannot do all at once. but when looking at the current meta model, i get
the feeling that they are really independent of each other. the current
meta model is a drawing not a model. in my point of view there does not
exist a methodology that will use all parts of the meta model in a consistent
manner. rather, there will be some methodologies wich use different subparts
of the model, which will lead to inconsistent results.

christian

------------- End Forwarded Message -------------