FW: description of Specification Metamodel

["Blantz, Mary Kay" <mblantz@netfish.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul R. Levine [mailto:plevine@telcordia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 8:53 AM
To: Blantz, Mary Kay
Subject: description of Specification Metamodel




Mary Kay,

Please forward this message from Karsten on to the CC PT list.  I can't send
to
that list either.

Thanks,

Paul
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul R. Levine/Telcordia on 11/27/2000
11:51
AM ---------------------------


Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM> on 11/27/2000 11:13:48 AM

Please respond to Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>

To:   ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:   cory-c@dataaccess.com (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
Subject:  description of Specification Metamodel




Hi,
Tomorrow we will have our weekly metamodel meeting.

The weekly BP/CC metamodel meeting is scheduled for 28 Nov. at 9 am PST, 12
pm
EST.

To access the call, dial 888-699-0348 domestically and +1 732-336-6000
internationally, with  a PIN of 4894#.

Paul, could you please forward this to CC list since my e-mails to that list
bounce.

Last week I presented the specification metamodel to the metamodel meeting,
but not everyone had the handout yet. For this week's meeting I have
included
the same handout in a more complete description of the metamodel, attached.

Last week the following issues were raised:
Need for subtype of role into agent and service.
Need for specification of timing/security on both halves of a commercial
transaction. Need for re-use of core process constructs.

The last of these issues are addressed in the attached. The first two will
be
addressed after more discussion tomorrow. After tomorrow's meeting I will
create an issues list to keep track of all all of this is we move toward a
submission to QR end of December.

Also discussed last week was the need for new names for the views of the
metamodel. In the attached document I am using the word "Analysis Metamodel"
in place of the word "Methodology Metamodel", this seems a little better,
but
I am open to further suggestions.

thanks,
-karsten

Mac Word 3.0