Comments on process MetaModel

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@dataaccess.com>]

I do not have the model & example fully "internalized" so I may be off-base,
but, it looks like there may be 2 Meta-layers represented in the same model
and that this may be complicating the model.

The "lower" level is the basics of interaction for a process.  Identifying
the processes & the players , the documents that flow between these
processes with ordering and content constraints.  This is the most "core"
information for the entities to collaborate.

The other layer, which I think derives from REA, is what I would consider an
abstract business framework - identifying the roles that may be found in
many generic economic processes.

So, would not the elements of the business framework - such as partner,
contract and economic resource be the "core components" that are instances
of the first Meta model and would be specialized for specific processes?
Could there not be non-financial business interactions (or at least those we
do not want to think about in that way)?

If so, the Meta model for the interaction would be much simpler as just the
"core" and the REI framework would have a clear relationship with this Meta
model - it would be an instance of it.

I also wonder if the assertion is that every EbXml interaction is a
realization of the REA model or that the REA model is one potential set of
core related roles.  We may have a buy-in problems if we attempt to impose
the REA view on existing processes (To intrusive on "business modeling"). On
the other hand, I do find the REA framework to be excellent as an abstract
framework on which to build a new self-consistent set of protocols.

So, we may want to consider the separation of the "core" Meta model from the
abstract business framework.

Things that I find missing in the "core" model are;
* A concept of the "B2B" business process it's self and the players in that
process as well as the portals that will connect these players.  

* A specific "connection" between collaborators in a process.  I think the
"contract" of that connection is a BusinessProcessInterface which needs
connection to the business process.  

* Specialization of documents and processes

* A description of the structure, cardinalities and constraints and types of
the documents that "flow"

* The ordering of documents between these collaborators (This may in some
way be implicit based on the "steps".

I would also think that the "Envelope" is part of the technology mapping and
need not be in this model.  Even if it is specified, it is part of the next
Meta-level down - not this Meta model.

Regards,
Cory Casanave