Re: Syntax Free Models

[Nikola Stojanovic <nstojano@cjds.com>]

Hi Bob and everybody else!
It looks to me that it would be very beneficial (in the context of the
discussion about sequences) that people take a look at the current TR&P
group's Overview & Requirements document.
Regards,
Nikola

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Haugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>
To: <ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Syntax Free Models


> Arofan Gregory wrote:
> >Process descriptions - because they model movement in time - are
> >tightly bound up with sequence. Data descriptions, because they are not
> >bound up by time (other than indirectly, by referenceing a sequence
> >description as part of identifying their context), should be left
> >sequence-free.
>
> I agree with you about data descriptions.
>
> Process descriptions, while they must deal with sequence,
> cannot have sequence relationships "hard-coded".  Manufacturing
> and distribution processes, for example, may vary according
> to the presence or absence of available inventory, the properties
> of process outputs (off-spec requiring rework, potency of active
> ingredients, sweetness and other recipe properties) and many
> other process constraints that act on the "event horizon".
> (I expect you meant that, but want to make sure.)
>
> Another situation where sequence can be important (that Martin
> focuses attention on) is the conversation or choreography or
> interaction of messages between parties in for example
> making agreements.  There, too, the sequences cannot be
> hard-coded, but are important.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Haugen