RE: Response to Comments

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Suggestions for a couple of responses:

Re:
>Line 239
>Why are only these collaborations defined?
>	This came from the REA discussion material of Haugen, McCarthy.

I don't understand the QR comment.  The section is about defined economic
elements, not defined collaborations.  There is no intent in the section
to limit the allowable or enumerated collaborations to some set; 
any collaborations listed are intended only as examples, not to
be prescriptive.  Maybe a note to that effect should be appended
for the literal-minded.

>Line 403, 406, 414
>If we are supposed to relate these to REA terms, then understanding of REA should be
>noted in the Caveats and Assumptions (section 5.3)
>	Agreed

I think the reference for these terms should be changed from REA to UMM
Economic Elements.  I erred in using REA as a reference; the definitions
are in UMM, which is an official reference for ebXML-BP.

-Bob Haugen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Clark, Randy W. [SMTP:Randy.Clark@bakerhughes.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:45 AM
To:	ebxml-ccbp-analysis@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	Response to Comments

All,

I have attached my initial response to the comments of the QRT on the
Business Process and Business Information Analysis Overview.  Please review
and comment or respond in the Analysis Team teleconference tomorrow.

Regards,

Randy

 <<ebXML Quality Review Group March 2001.doc>> 
 << File: ebXML Quality Review Group March 2001.doc >>