Re: BP Specshema vs. Context model

[Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>]

Makes alot of sense to me. I concur with Paul that this MUST be the structure.

Jim

"Paul R. Levine" wrote:

> My comments on BPSS issues 102 and 114 suggest the BPSS go part way on this
> and include the detail under Business Document as shown in the UMM
> metamodel. Then there should be a clear handoff to the CC part of the
> metamodel that clearly shows the relationships to Business Information
> Objects and Core Components as extended by context, based on the ebXML
> Specification for the Role of Context in the Re-usability of Core
> Components in Business Processes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Levine
>
>
>                     Karsten Riemer -
>                     Sun IR Development         To:     ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>                     <Karsten.Riemer@eas        cc:     (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
>                     t.sun.com>                 Subject:     BP Specshema vs. Context model
>
>                     04/16/01 02:07 PM
>                     Please respond to
>                     Karsten Riemer -
>                     Sun IR Development
>
>
>
> I brought this issue up in today's joint BP/CC meeting:
>
> At Vancouver the BP metamodel team met with the Context Model team and
> compared
> metamodels. We decided that since the Context Model team was preparing a
> metamodel for context driven Documents, the BP metamodel team would remove
> the
> part of our specification schema that dealt with document model, and simply
> refer to the CC metamodel for context driven Documents.
>
> The CC metamodel for context driven Documents is shown as a UML class
> diagram at
> lines 156/157 in:
>
> http://ebxml.org/project_teams/core_components/
> ebXMLTheroleofcontextinthere-usabilityofCoreComponentsandBusinessProcessesVer1.0
>
> .pdf
>
> (the spec status page off ebXML.org lists a version 1.02 of what looks like
> the
> same document, but no such document is available for review yet)
>
> The questions now are:
>
> 1. Is the above document or a subsequent version of same still slated for
> approval in Vienna, and if so does it still contain the mentioned UML class
> diagram?
> 2. If not, then what should we do about a document model in BP specSchema.
> 3. If yes, who is responsible for aligning this model with the information
> model
> imbedded in UMM?
>
> Can someone please provide the answers or point me to the right person(s)
> so I
> can get the answers. This is critical to showing a complete picture of how
> the
> specifications work together.
>
> thanks,
> -karsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Karsten Riemer,
> b2b Architect
> XML Technology Center
> Sun Microsystems Inc.,
> MailStop UBUR02-201
> 1 Network Drive,
> Burlington, MA 01803-0903
>
> ph. 781-442-2679
> fax 781-442-1437
> e-mail karsten.riemer@sun.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org

begin:vcard 
n:Clark;James
tel;cell:936.524.4424
tel;work:936.264.3366
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:I.C.O.T.
adr:;;10987 Quinlan N Lake;Conroe;TX;77303;
version:2.1
email;internet:jdc-icot@lcc.net
title:Principal Consultant
fn:James Clark
end:vcard