RE: Items for today's BP/CC meeting

["Sharma, Nita" <nsharma@netfish.com>]

Your Comment:
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.

If this happens at this stage, it would impact a lot of dependencies on the
BPSS. So we do require to think through this carefully.

- Nita 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:43 AM
To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Items for today's BP/CC meeting


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


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org