"If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM to
everything else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it will be
architecture."
I have never seen satisfactory definitions for reference model and
reference architecture to say what should be included in one as opposed to
the other. Definitions are required, not analogies or examples.
I think this is another issue that is a subtext to a lot of our discussions
that has to be settled.
It certainly is the subtext to the one document or two discussion. I got a
sense at the last conference call, that having two documents was a way to
finesse this issue without really dealing with it.
Michael
