Re: Metamodel meeting 21 Nov.

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Jim,
I am not sure from Karsten's doc that another physical metamodel is
indicated to exist containing only the two lower layers , or if this is
conceptual.
Is this your main contention? I do think it adds some confusion.
[Karsten, can you explain a little more?]. I currently hold judement on the
"Specification based UML" for now.

My primary concern is with the XML representation -- "Specification based
XML",
not necessarily the "Specification based UML",
for system interaction, the semantics, and how it can be automatically
generated via software through XMI/Production Rules, or other means.
This needs to be facilitated in order to reduce cost of ownership,
increase choice of tools by multiple vendors, and reduce buy-in to ebXML,
and needs to be the primary focus point.

I agree that the "Specification based XML" should be methodology-free and
must be able to be arived at from a variety of methodologies, with the BPMM
as the single sanctioned approach by ebXML.

Thanks,
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net> on 11/20/2000 11:20:30 AM

To:   Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>
cc:   ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-cc@lists.ebxml.org,
      cory-c@dataaccess.com, alonjon@mega.com
Subject:  Re: Metamodel meeting 21 Nov.



Karsten et al,

I object to the creation of a new meta model, the current metamodel and the
semantics
it defines are wholly suitable. Your defintion and description of the
current
metamodel is incorrect and disingenuous.

This current direction will cause ebXML not to be interoperable with TMWG,
RosettaNet, Swift and CGI.

Jim Clark

Karsten Riemer wrote:

> The weekly BP/CC metamodel meeting is scheduled for 21 Nov. at
> 9 am PST, 12 pm EST.
>
> To access the call, dial 888-699-0348 domestically and +1 732-336-6000
> internationally, with  a PIN of 8154#.
>
> We will be continuing the work we started at Tokyo on creating a hand-off
> layer between BP and TP. We now refer to that as the specification
metamodel
> as distinguished from the methodology metamodel. I attach the explanation
of
> the relationship between the two, as I submitted it to the TA team at
Tokyo.
>
> The specification metamodel will be part of the March timeframe
Infrastructure
> Release, because it is needed in support of the TP specification, so we
will
> be working at an accellerated pace on this, including the metamodel/TP
> face-to-face in Boston December 6-8.
>
> thanks,
> -karsten
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                           Name:
MetamodelArchitectureChapter.doc
>    MetamodelArchitectureChapter.doc       Type: WINWORD File
(application/msword)
>                                       Encoding: BASE64
>                                    Description: Word.Document.8