RE: 16 Mar. Conference Call notice

> >a model for models - that is what we call meta model.
> 
> I think it should be obvious that "what *we* call meta model"
> has yet to be agreed.
> 

sorry, bob - it is not "we" it is "the literature".

> >what you are proposing is in my terms a framework.
> >it is of high value. but there is no "meta" at all.
> 
> "Meta" is a relative term.
> 

meta is specific.

christian