RE: ebXML Specification Schema

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

If the transaction patterns are mandatory, then anyone who uses a given BP
process must obey the specified pattern and there is no variability that
would require agreement between the two parties to the CPA.  If what I just
stated is correct, then I see no reason why the patterns need appear in the
output from the specification metamodel.

Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 12/12/2000 03:54:27 PM

To:   "'jamesc@edifecs.com'" <jamesc@edifecs.com>,
      "ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: ebXML Specification Schema



Jim and all,

Maybe I misunderstood something in the Boston F2F meeting:
I thought the specification schema was based on the business
transaction patterns as well as the interaction patterns. In fact,
some of my objections to some of the proposed metamodel
changes, e.g. arbitrary return types, came from my assumption
that the business transaction patterns with their limited return
types were the foundation of what we were specifying.

Did I miss the boat?  The document you sent refers to the
business transaction patterns but appears to consider them
to be optional, whereas the interaction patterns appear to be
mandatory.

Respectfully,
Bob Haugen