Items for today's BP/CC meeting

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

Hi,
among the issues for BP SpecSchema, several require discussion aomg the BP
metamodel, BP Analysis, and CC teams:

Issues 6, 8, 81, 89, 97, 115, 117, 118, 119, 89, 85,  all have to do with
relationship between UMM and BP SpecSchema. What can you do with one, what can
you do with the other, how do we ensure alignment? In general I think we
should take advantage of the fact that neither UMM nor BP SpecSchema have been
approved yet, so we can change them both to bring forth a better alignment. A
quick proposal that sidesteps a lengthy debate about whether BP SpecSchema can
be used to specify Business Processes or not: Rename BP SpecSchema to BC
SpecSchema (Business Collaboration Specification Schema). Much of the text in
the document already describes the purpose as supporting specification of
Business Collaborations.

Issues 2, 37 have to do with relationship between the four analysis documents
and the BP SpecSchema, specifically with respect to patterns and REA. I
believe additional issues have been raised against the four analysis documents
themselves that also seek clarification of relationship to BP SpecSchema. Who
will address these issues?

Issues 27, 28, 33 have to do with relation to CPP/CPA, and the independence
(or interdependence of the individual ebXML specifications)

An issue just raised by Neal: Should we include a W3C schema version of the
SpecSchema along with (or instead of) the DTD? What is the recommendation from
BP/CC - DTD or Schema, or both?

Issues 102, 114, 103, 94, 92, 79, 80 all have to do with relationship between
BP Specschema, UMM information model, and CC information/context model. My
suggestion is that since BP Specshcema no longer has a document model, that
these issues get transferred to CC and UMM groups for alignment, and that we
remove references to document structure from BP SpecSchema.

thanks,
-karsten