RE: Metamodel meeting 21 Nov.

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

<Karsten Riemer>
A response to Jim Clark's e-mail on this topic:
We are not defining a new metamodel
</Karsten Riemer>

Karsten, here are some reasons why some of us think it is 
a new metamodel:

1. The first couple of versions had significant differences
    from any reasonable derivation of the current metamodel:
    * different method of sequencing
    * different way of modeling recursive processes
    * missing concepts (that should have been there)
    * in other words, not what one would get in a straightforward
      derivation of the current metamodel.
    I was not in Tokyo and have not seen your current version,
    so maybe these problems were resolved.  But they made
    your metamodel different from a design standpoint, so as
    to require a complex mapping rather than a simple one,
    and block some potentials of the current metamodel
    from being expressed (or at least I could not figure out
    how to express them).

2. As Tony Weida pointed out, your terminology ("specification
   metamodel") and positioning comments made it seem like yours 
   was the specification and the existing metamodel was superfluous 
   and optional.
   This is a problem because a lot of other work (e.g. Common
   Business Processes and what I am doing with the Economic
   Elements) is based on the current metamodel.

A question:  Jim Clark also provided a simplified runtime model,
that was a straightforward derivation from the current metamodel.
What happened with that model in Tokyo? Was it ignored?

-Bob Haugen