Re: Metamodel meeting 21 Nov.

[Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>]

Scott,

Scott Hinkelman wrote:

> 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.

This was and may still be the stated objective. That there would be two
metamodels, effectively decoupling the ebXML metamodel from the
runtime/implementation. After today's meeting I am not sure. However, I will
continue to on and fight for one metamodel. Two would lead to a divergent
implementation and prevent interoperability of business processes.

>
> 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.

We fully agree.

>
>
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Clark;James
tel;cell:936.524.4424
tel;work:936.264.3366
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:jdc-icot@lcc.net
fn:James Clark
end:vcard