Re: Representation Types Alternatives

[Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>]

> b)  If the purpose is to constrain the value space *and* provide the
> analyst/modeler with a level of abstraction and higher level of
> reusability than the types offered by the Specification Schema, XML, or
> UML, then we should define a set of types rather than adopt one.  When
> defining the set, we should fully specify all of the relevant fields for
> each type (for example - measure has both value and units).

I would strongly object to ebXML defining "yet another set of datatypes".
What they should do is to formally define Representation Types in terms of
the data types defined by the Business Process team.

Martin Bryan