Re: 2 July BP meeting notes and 16 July BP meeting notice

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@Sun.COM>]

A question and a comment on meeting minutes:

"Jamie Clark questioned that if on-going development of the modeling
methodology/metamodel is to be in the TMWG, what would guarantee conformance
to this work within the eBusiness Working Group.  He further asked how this
work would hold up if UN/CEFACT doesn't submit it to the W3C."

The question is to Jamie: Did you mean that UN/CEFACT should submit BPSS to
W3C?

The comment is that in my mind it is not important whether UMM is developed in
TMWG or elsewhere, it is important that the process is open, that everyone can
see the status of UMM at all times, and that everyone has input in its further
evolution. For instance, it is not an open process if changes are being made,
and are being taken to the Dublin meeting without being publicly available. If
there is a time constraint in getting the whole document ready for public
visibility in advance of Dublin, then at least send out the UML diagrams, in
whatever shape you can produce them now. Don't wait for a final spell-checked
document, and don't wait for a conversion to objecteering or XMI. Just send
out the diagrams now as .doc, .gif, .jpg, .mdl, or whatever you have.

thanks,
-karsten


>ebXML BP PT Members,
>
>The minutes of the 2 July conference call are attached in an .rtf file.
>The discussion will be continued in a conference call meeting on 16 July,
>2001, 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.  To access this call, dial 888-699-0348
>domestically and  +1 732-336-6000 internationally.  I would appreciate your
>reply to this message if you plan to attend this calls.
>
>Regards,
>
>Paul Levine
>BP PT co-lead
>(See attached file: BP_PT_2Jul2001.rtf)