RE: There already is a separate Meta model!

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@dataaccess.com>]

Mark,
The TP team is not encroaching they are proceeding.  They have been very
open to receive a suitable model from BP, my point is that if we fail to
provide one they will proceed with a solution - and they should.  The
solution we provide must also fit with the TP requirements for what is
practical to drive such an execution layer - we can not be ignorant of
implementation reality or the timeframe practicality of integrating such a
model.

Cory

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	CRAWFORD, Mark [SMTP:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:37 PM
> To:	'Cory Casanave'; Karsten Riemer - Sun IR Development;
> jamesc@edifecs.com
> Cc:	linkage@interaccess.com; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org;
> ebxml-cc@lists.ebxml.org; alonjon@mega.com
> Subject:	RE: There already is a separate Meta model!
> 
> Cory, 
>         You imply the TP meta model is an approved approach.  I would
> submit to you the TP group does not have an approved set of requirements,
> much less an approved specification with a separate metamodel.  I would
> also submit to you that TP's function is to support the needs of the other
> ebXML project teams and if they are trying to define specific
> functionality within other areas, IMHO they are out of scope. 
> 
>         It is important to note the only approved ebXML technical
> specification  at the moment is the requirements document.  Section 3.3 of
> that document  clearly delineates metamodel definition responsibility to
> the business process group. 
> 
>         If BP feels that TP is in fact encroaching, then the BP lead
> should raise this issue to the Steering Committee. 
> 
> Mark Crawford 
> Requirements Team Editor   
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Cory Casanave [ <mailto:cory-c@dataaccess.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:24 PM 
> To: Karsten Riemer - Sun IR Development; jamesc@edifecs.com 
> Cc: linkage@interaccess.com; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; 
> ebxml-cc@lists.ebxml.org; cory-c@dataaccess.com; alonjon@mega.com 
> Subject: There already is a separate Meta model! 
> 
> 
> I have been watching all the dialog about the need for a specification
> Meta 
> model and it's degree of alignment with the collaboration model.  It seems
> 
> we are missing an important point - the TP is already using another Meta 
> model, one not derived or aligned with the collaboration model at all.
> This 
> model is used to drive the execution engine of the TP layer. 
> 
> I have strong doubts that the collaboration model will ever be used to
> drive 
> the execution engine.  What we are in danger of, by our continued
> thrashing, 
> is that there will be NO relation between the execution model and business
> 
> modeling.  It will be a BIG WIN for EbXml to be able to show business 
> modeling (which is how I think of the collaboration + REA model) with a
> firm 
> mapping down to such an execution model - lets not loose this advantage
> with 
> religious wars. 
> 
> Unless we get our act together the current (TPA) execution model will go 
> forward as part of the first EbXml release and will be very hard to
> unroot. 
> We will be forced to adapt the business semantics to meet the capabilities
> 
> of the implementation rather than the other way around.  
> 
> So, the assertion is that we WILL HAVE an intermediate model, one way or 
> another. 
> 
> That it would be far better to cooperate to make this integrate with 
> business modeling and the execution model. 
> 
> Discussions of "it is or is not the same model" are useless. 
> 
> You have at-most a month, after that the technology implementation will
> have 
> gone to far. 
> 
> Karstens model is the only base line to proceed from.  If there are
> missing 
> semantics, work it out. 
> 
> If we succeed we will be able to keep a traceable path from business 
> modeling to execution & compatibility with RosettaNet, CGI, 
> TMForum, UN/EDFACT, ect 
> 
> 
> Regards, 
> Cory Casanave 
>