RE: ebXML Specification Schema

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Jim and all,

Maybe I misunderstood something in the Boston F2F meeting:
I thought the specification schema was based on the business
transaction patterns as well as the interaction patterns. In fact,
some of my objections to some of the proposed metamodel
changes, e.g. arbitrary return types, came from my assumption
that the business transaction patterns with their limited return
types were the foundation of what we were specifying.

Did I miss the boat?  The document you sent refers to the
business transaction patterns but appears to consider them
to be optional, whereas the interaction patterns appear to be
mandatory.

Respectfully,
Bob Haugen