[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: issue resolution updates
Resolution of issues, 4/17/2001 In metamodel meeting today we decided on the following issues: 1. We will rename DocumentType to BusinessDocument (partially resolved issues 102/103/114) 2. We will (re-)introduce the DocumentEnvelope, but as an optional layer: A document flow can have a single BusinessDocument, or a DocumentEnvelope. Who will make a proposal for this? (Part of issue 120) 3. We will not introduce the explicit notion of structured and unstructured documents. All primary documents (element BusinessDocument) are expected to be XML, defined in a Schema (or DTD), even if all they are is a wrapper around some "unstructured" segment and/or the holder of a set of attachments. 4. We will rename Schema to DocumentSpecification (related to issues 102/103/114) 5. We will leave cardinality between the renamed entities DocumentSpecification and BusinessDocument as one-to-many. This means that a new business transaction must be defined for each flavor of its document exchange. For example CreatePurchaseOrder_OAG using OAG documents, and CreatePurchaseOrder_X12 using X12, etc. etc. The group feels this is the only safe thing to do. Any attempt to allow generic transactions with parameterized document choice is too ambitious (whimps!). 6. We leave logicalModel as the only linkage to the CC context model. So in the renamed DocumentSpecification element "location" points to where the actual content model of the BusinessDocument is, and "logicalModel" points to where the CC context model for the BusinessDocument is. If the latter is blank, the BusinessDocument is assumed to not have been created using CC context model. 7. There was no support for simplifying ebXML process specification by allowing Business Transaction to be its own BinaryCollaboration, instead of requiring a wrapping BinaryCollaboration. Proposal dropped (whimps!).
Powered by eList eXpress LLC