TITLE:	Comments for Enterprise language and Application architecture

SOURCE:	Finland

STATUS:	For discussion in the Helsinki meeting in July 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.	The nature and the objective of the standard are unclear.

2.	We appreciate the intention to separate the issues of Enterprise
	language and Business object architectures from each other.

3.	We support the UK suggestion of title change.

4.      The introduction of the purpose of each viewpoint language in
        clause 4 seems either to be incorrect, or at least not the only
        correct one. The RM-ODP Part 3 definitions quoted in clause 5
        are not concrete enough to give a mapping between the viewpoints
        and a software engineering process. It is also unclear whether
        multiple mappings are allowed or just one. In literature, a
        number of different interpretations can be seen -- each of which
        have their benefits and drawbacks. Is it intended/appropriate to
        select one mapping to be the correct one?