RE: ebXML metamodel write-up

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Christian Huemer wrote:
>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,

When you use the term "methodology" above, what use cases
do you have in mind?  Any of the scenarios that Karsten outlined
in the metamodel document?  Software developers using TMWG
N90?  Business users trying to send a simple one-off purchase
order?  All or none of the above?

What would "consistent results" mean across all scenarios?
And what methodology is proven to give consistent results for all
scenarios under any conditions?

I am not trying to defend the perfection of the BP metamodel
here, just trying to get you to ground your statements.  I was
involved in the discussions that gave rise to Karsten's statements 
about selectively using parts (but not all) of the metamodel.
I thought the statements were aimed at business users of
ebXML who had limited goals.  That was part of the reason
for the recent simplification of the Business Process package,
so that sending a simple message did not require instantiating
several unnecessary layers of hierarchy.

Regards,
Bob Haugen