Remove all Documents? was Re: issue resolution updates

[James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>]

Karsten, this sounds like pretty radical surgery, and at first blush I am
having trouble conceptualizing the degree to which logical model validation
would be achievable after that triage.   

Doesn't this really get you to the same place as your e-mail from Africa?
(Cardinality change, where transactions take 0..* documents instead of 1,2? ) 

In a hypothetical zero-documents world:
   1.   I think we would be allowing each schema (lower case "s", e.g.,
X12, RNIF, OAG) to bring over its own level of reliability of contract
production -- instead of imposing the constraints in the somewhat RNIF-like
UMM.   Is that a good thing?  Certainly it would make for easier adoption
by all kinds of other communities, including non-UMM-users of UML.  On the
other hand, we lose some of the opportunity to logically compare apples to
apples, and we lose the advantage of reliability and stability perceived by
some in the binary pairing model.  
  2.  Don't we lose some of the signals too?  I'm not sure how the DSIG
parameter or 'receiptAcknowledgement' would work, if there is a complex or
indeterminate association between the doc that asks for the parameter, and
the document(s) that [respond] to it and therefore should conform to the
parameter.    It might be a solvable problem, but it seems a little late to
crack that tough nut in a reliable and stable manner for 1.0.
 
Jamie

At 08:42 AM 4/18/2001 , Karsten Riemer wrote:

>Since the Specification Schema no longer has a DocumentModel, I propose to
>remove all associated references to the analysis and structure of
>BusinessDocuments from the Specification Schema, and leave that up to CC
>documents as agreed in Tokyo. I think we should try to make the Specification
>Schema shorter, not longer.