>It is based upon prior UN/CEFACT work, specifically the
>UN/CEFACT Unified Modeling Methodology (UMM) defined in the N90 specification.
It's not based on the methodology but the metamodel
behind N90, as you originally wrote. (We agreed to a
compromise way to reference the BP metamodel, not
to eliminate the metamodel as a normative reference.)
I agree with Mr. Miller that the sentence is awkward, but
that's what happens with some compromises.
>A subsequent version will address additional desired(required?) features
>such as the semantics of economic exchanges and contracts, multi-party
>choreography, and context based content.
>(There was also a suggestion by Bob Haugen to drop the last paragraph, I would
>like to hear votes pro/con on that)
McCarthy's wording is ok by me. I was just trying to avoid
more description-churn and get the document nailed down,
I didn't like the original wording but didn't think it was
necessary to debate it. In other words, I pass.
-Bob Haugen
