RE: Unresolved issues in worksheet?

[Charlie Fineman <fineman@arzoon.com>]

Heh... ok maybe I'm not *sure* what I mean anymore :-)

There was no mention of these econmic elements in the worksheets to date. I
was thinking that the REA represented a special methodology for expressing
collaborations but that the collaboration specification schema was not
limited to REA style transactions. Perhaps I am guilty of assuming that REA
elements where not "first class citizens" in the meta model (in other words,
the are specialized from more basic concepts in the meta model). Tell you
what... I will be sending out the edited version shortly, perhaps you can
read what is there with your point in mind? 

Bottom line, I think we need to have a rich treatment of REA in the
worksheet doc but I was assuming we would keep it as an appendix as it is
now.

	C


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:17 AM
To: 'Charlie Fineman'; 'Welsh, David'; 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Clare Shemeta'; William McCarthy (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Unresolved issues in worksheet?


Charlie Fineman:
>Our conclusion was that REA was a specialization of what was
>representable by UMM

Not sure what you mean here.  The "Economic Elements" in UMM
come directly from (and are the same as) the same concepts in REA.

But was your point that there is no need to me to address Clare's
comments in an earlier version of the worksheet document?
(I'm not looking for an assignment, just trying not to shirk
a responsibility...)

-Bob Haugen