RE: overview of specSchema issue resolutions

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

Issues related to "economic" Meta types:

* My general concern is that we are pulling in bits and pieces of REA in a
way that may or may not be useful and/or correct since the real business
semantics extends far beyond the B2B contract we are modeling.  I would like
to see this represented in realistic and useful samples.

* Not all collaborations or transfers will be "economic" in this sense, the
cardinalities should reflect this by allowing "0".

* DocumentTransfer and BinaryCollaboration may be events rather than result
in them.  The cardinalities are not specified.

* Since EconomicEvent is only "resulted in", it seems to do nothing and not
be connected to any other semantics.  How does this effect what either the
technology or business does?

* Other events in the system will effect and be effected by the economic
elements, this generality is not represented in the model.  A generic model
should be presented with the BP elements inheriting capabilities as
necessary.

Cory

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Karsten Riemer [SMTP:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com]
> Sent:	Monday, March 05, 2001 2:13 PM
> To:	ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:	overview of specSchema issue resolutions
> 
> Attached is an overview of the current status of issue resolution 
> for the specification schema.
> 
> We will have our usual metamodel meeting tomorrow, Tuesday,
> at 11 am EST. 1-888-699-0348 pass code 3042#.  
> 
> thanks,
> -karsten << File: WinZip >>