RE: Updated specification schema model

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>]

What Cory just sent out with attachments named
ebXMLSpecSchema097rearranged.mdl and Spec097c.pdf  is as he said the result of
today's metamodel meeting. 

A few comments about those files:

The files are identical, inlcluding visual layout, one is .mdl the other is
.pdf, so if all you want is to print the picture, just use the .pdf.

The word 'rearranged' refers to the fact that we moved the boxes around to
make a more logical picture, with Multiparty at the top, then binary, then
choreography, then transaction, then document flow. This re-arrangement was
based on a suggestion from Brian Hayes, and does not involve any modeling
change at all, only visual rearrangement.

Now for the things that changed (or didn't), here are the decisions we made
today: (several of these are subject to Jim giving a final opinion base on his
UMM work).

RequestingBusinessActivity and RespondingBusinessActivity will stay, and will
not be renamed.

There will be no explicit role at the transaction level, only at the
transaction activity level.

There will be no explicit relationship between AuthorizedRole and either
RequestingBusinessActivity and RespondingBusinessActivity.

What we had been calling DocumentTransfer has been renamed to DocumentFlow. It
maps to the UMM objectflow, not to the UMM DocumentEnvelope. There will be no
explict DocumentEnvelope in the specSchema.

Cardinality is 1-to-many between RespondingBusinessActivity and DocumentFlow.
This means many possible response DocumentFlows per
RespondingBusinessActivity, but at most one at actual transaction runtime.

The isLegallyBinding attribute will live only at BusinessTransactionActivity,
not anywhere within the BusinessTransaction itself, i.e. not at the
RequestingBusinessActivity, RespondingBusinessActivity, or DocumentFlow
levels.

I am working on incorporating this model and its corresponding DTD into the
document and will send out a version 0.97 doc with the 0.97 model and DTD by
tomorrow noon.

We are still intending to submit this to QR on the 19th.

-karsten