RE: 22 Jan. call report and 29 Jan. call notice

["Paul R. Levine" <plevine@telcordia.com>]

Bob Haugen,

Thanks for the clarification.

Paul
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul R. Levine/Telcordia on 01/23/2001 11:26
PM ---------------------------


Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 01/23/2001 06:26:08 PM

To:   "'Paul R. Levine'" <plevine@telcordia.com>, "ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org"
      <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:   "Anne.Hendry@eng.sun.com" <Anne.Hendry@eng.sun.com>, "James D. Clark"
      <jdc-icot@lcc.net>, "Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>,
      "Johnston, Simon" <sjohnsto@Rational.Com>, "mblantz@netfish.com"
      <mblantz@netfish.com>, "lms@wwnet.com" <lms@wwnet.com> (bcc: Paul R.
      Levine/Telcordia)
Subject:  RE: 22 Jan. call report and 29 Jan. call notice




Correction on minutes:
>Commenting on the BPE meeting, Karsten said the BPE design will support the
>Specification Schema in all respects except for the Business Operations Map
>(BOM) perspective of the metamodel.  Bob said the BOM was primarily a method
>for scoping the business collaboration to be modeled, and didn't need to be
part of the
>BPE.
  ^^^^^

If I said that, it wasn't what I *meant* to say, which was that the BOM *does*
need to be part of the BPE, but it does *not* need to be part of the
Specification
Schema.

-Bob Haugen