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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-regrep message

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

Subject: RE: 28 Feb. Conference Call Report (meta modelling v frameworks)


Thanks .  Yes - I did see the REA information. 

Maybe we have a different frame of reference for meta levels vs frameworks within a meta level.
I have viewed your REA as a framework within  the model [application/business] level.

As I understand the IRDS standard (and references implied in UML 1.1  Semantics - Section 2.2):
- the meta  level would be what we define ebXML items with ( business models, message models, state transitions....) with.
- a model/business/application framework provides the key abstractions [subject areas] that we would define subtypes/specialisations for.

As for meta-meta level I do not think that we need any extensions.
For meta I think we need UML+  .  My reviews of the HL7/M&M MDF meta structures indicate they are the most advanced in appropriate UML extensions,
and I believe should form the basis for ebXML meta extensions of UML  (or UML profile?)

I believe that the REA is a A good business framework for a number of aspects of business modelling.  Other vertical domain specialisations could be both 'adjacent'/peer 
to the REA, or specialisations within it.

hope this gets my understanding acroos. Look forward to the comments.


Keith Finkelde 
BT Portfolio Services
email: keith.finkelde@btfinancialgroup.com
phone: +61 2 9259 9765

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Wednesday,1 March 2000 11:00
To: 'Keith.Finkelde@btfinancialgroup.com'
Subject: RE: 28 Feb. Conference Call Report

>I do not understand this direction of heading to meta-meta models. 
  Surely this will be >ThingType, Thing & ThingRelation! (MetaClassType, 
MetaClass & MetaClassRelation)

Hi Keith,

I know what  you mean, but...did you see the REA ontology?
It is a metamodel that is fairly simple, says something more
useful than Thing etc., works in practice, and can encompass
most of the content of the other 7 models:

I would be interested to get your impression...

-Bob Haugen

[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