RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

<Stefano Pogliani>
My idea, I know, is far more low-level than the one promoted by Bob. Bob's
assumption is that the REA model would be able to account for every kind of
transaction. I do not object to this, but I prefer to see the things from a
technical standpoint where "I do not care too much" of what is an economic
event, I care about the choreography of commercial transactions described in
the Specification Schema, and each trx being one or more inpiut/output
messages.
</Stefano Pogliani>

Actually, I do not think that the REA model can account for every kind
of ebXML transaction.  In fact, only a small part of the REA semantic
model is used in the ebXML metamodel. It only accounts for transactions 
with economic significance.  (But that is where the accounting and
legal considerations apply.)

The problem with taking a purely technical viewpoint is that you can't
tell from the choreography when a transaction with economic 
significance has occurred unless something in the choreography
tells you.  The document just received does not necessarily
do the trick.

Most of the time, the BSI will only want to send economic transactions
to legacy systems when they have been confirmed or accepted.

Similarly, if the BSI includes a mapping from ebXML transactions
to legacy systems, for the common economic transactions it will
be easier to map to and from a canonical model (i.e. the economic
elements in the ebXML-BP metamodel) than to each variant of
a document used in trade.  But that gets me past anything doable
in ebXML 1.0.

I continue to think my ideas are compatible with yours, though.
We each want to think at a different level, but I believe strongly
that both levels (technical and business semantics) are necessary
to doing electronic *business*, as opposed to just file transfer.

Regards,
Bob Haugen