Conclusion regarding DocumentEnvelope vs DocumentFlow

[Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>]

All,

I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the structure of the modeling
mechanism known in the UMM as Document Evelope. In the UMM the mechanism which
specifies echange of BusinessDocuments within a Business Transaction. Within the
UMM metamodel, the current way of defining an object flow (abstract) of type
"DocumentEnvelope" is the correct way for precisely defining the type of object
that is passed from business activity to business activity. Though two elements
are used to define the object flow that occurs between two activities, it results
in only one modeling element for the model itself: "an objectflow of type
'DocumentEnvelope'".

So if the corresponding element in the spec schema is also an object flow but is
called DocumentFlow, what is the real issue? Is it simply a naming preference?
If this is the case then according to my conversations with people from the
analysis team, the most appropriate term would be "Document Envelope", a container
for passing documents. They would not find it normal to talk in terms of "Document
Flow", or the act of transfering a document.

Conclusion: In the UMM the concept of DocumentEnvelope remains unless further
rationalization or analysis should show a more viable alternative.

Respectfully,
Jim Clark
e2open, LLC



begin:vcard 
n:Clark;James
tel;cell:936.524.4424
tel;work:936.264.3366
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:I.C.O.T.
adr:;;10987 Quinlan N Lake;Conroe;TX;77303;
version:2.1
email;internet:jdc-icot@lcc.net
title:Principal Consultant
fn:James Clark
end:vcard