[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: ebXML Specification Schema
If the transaction patterns are mandatory, then anyone who uses a given BP process must obey the specified pattern and there is no variability that would require agreement between the two parties to the CPA. If what I just stated is correct, then I see no reason why the patterns need appear in the output from the specification metamodel. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 12/12/2000 03:54:27 PM To: "'jamesc@edifecs.com'" <jamesc@edifecs.com>, "ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org> cc: Subject: RE: ebXML Specification Schema 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC