OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: meeting reminder and minutes

Reminder: The next weekly BP/CC metamodel meeting will be 10/31 at noon EST, 9
am PST.

  Review of FSV level models for the XML representation.
  Plans and agenda for Tokyo.

To access the call, dial 888-699-0348 domestically and +1 732-336-6000
internationally, with  a PIN of 7142#.

Minutes from Metamodel meeting 10/17/2000:


  Review of proposal for XML level metamodel.
  Process for review of metamodel.


Bob Haugen
Bill McCarthy
Jean-Jacques Dubray
Anne Hendry
Antoine Lonjon
Paul Levine
Karsten Riemer
Sharon Kadlec
Sig Handelman
Scott Hinkelman
Jim Clark
David Webber

1. Review of XML level proposal:

Karsten had sent out a tentative list of "requirements" on BP from TP. 
(Editorial: Marty Sachs of TP team since has replied that the list seems
comprehensive enough to cover TP's needs)

Karsten restated the goal as arriving at the minimal sufficient subset to
cover TP needs and to make for a simple XML representation.

Paul pointed out that new terms have been coined for the various layers, to
align with open-edi. See Paul's e-mails. These terms will now have to be
aligned with the 4 layers of the metamodel. For this meeting we still use the
term FSV to mean the FSV of the current model.

Karsten stated that the XML layer is intended to be the lowest layer that is
not yet technology specific.

Bob requested (and got) confirmation that all semantics at the XML level will
be derived from the current model and/or "ported" back into it.

Karsten added to Bob's comment, that semantics will be preserved, but some
layers might be "collapsed", i.e. the new layer might combine semantics from
BOM, BRV, and BOV layers.

Jim re-iterated that we are not looking for a completely alternative view.

Karsten stated that it would be desireable to include REA elements, as
possible pre-conditions.

Sharon asked for (and got) clarification that formal TPA contract not required
for entry into ebXML e-commerce. Question was based on possible, but optional
use of REA contract formation  as a pre-condition, but REA contract is part of
the BP itself, not part of TPA negotiation.

Nicola stated that we need alignment with TRP terminology.

2. Process for review of metamodel.

Karsten stated that by end of Tokyo we should "freeze" the scope of the
metamodel. That does not mean freeze the content, just that we must know and
declare the overall scope.

Karsten asked for a list of areas of the metamodel still being worked on
outside this meeting.

Bob mentioned party/partner discussion as unfinished.

Sharon stated that context table is still to be completed.

Karsten asked for status on information model and context.
Jim referred to well written document on context by Bryan Martin and the last
appendix of ebxml(edifecs) spec. It was Jim's impression that the two are well
aligned, but that core components and context are not yet part of the
ebxml(edifecs) model. 

Jim stated that the highest levels of current ebxml (edifecs) model can be
considered complete. ISV is still to come. This is a technology specific
layer, similar to what open-edi calls "FSV".

Bob stated that REA and its reification to lower levels has been tabled for
now, but must be part of what we prepare for Vancouver

Karsten asked that all known parts of the metamodel be put out for open access
for the BP/CC metamodel team, even if work-in-progress.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC