RE: Classification and discovery

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

>Bob, remember that the Executive foisted TPA on 
>us for our own good (I'm not quibbling - I'm just
>noting the due process).   

I recognize that their was some unhappiness about
the Executive action on TPA, but way prior to that,
the TPA guys (Scott Hinkelman and Marty Sachs)
were communicating with the BP and TR&P groups
(at least); several members of the BP group met with them
in SJ; Marty did an overlay diagram showing how TPA
mapped to the current BP metamodel; we decided
in general how the different models would be merged;
etc.  It was a very collegial process by the worker bees.
(UDDI was sort of a shock, though...)

>f) Lots of this happening, everyone agrees
>     that ebXML GUIDE makes sense and 
>     we go back to b) and make a decision.

I don't see how you can call it ebXML GUIDE yet.
You are representing this as if it were already
adopted by RegRep, when everybody I have
asked on the side says it is not.  So the only
person I have seen saying it makes sense
is you.  Note, I am not saying it does not
make sense, but (for example) it looks like
you have embedded a workflow-like process
model in your classification schema,  where one 
element is linked directly to the one next and previous 
elements.  BP rejected that kind of model in our first 
meeting, for reasons that I could go into in detail
if necessary, but the point is that many design
decisions have been made in each working group
that GUIDE appears to override.  

So even if GUIDE were a good idea, the degree
of overlap is so great that it would be a long
and difficult negotiation process to get all the
working groups to even consider it, given the
tight schedules everybody is on anyway.

So if RegRep won't champion it, I don't see
how it is a practical answer for BP.

-Bob Haugen