RE: REA (was Tags and semantics ( was Dotted Names) )

[John McClure <hypergrove@olympus.net>]

Bob Haugen says:
> Many people within the ebXML BP group wanted to get REA embedded
> in the first version of the ebXML runtime specs, but we ran out of time,
> bandwidth, etc. and I think also wanted to keep the required
> implementation specs more modest.

I can understand the position as far as the business process model is
concerned, but the REA data model I would think would be a major topic
within the CC group. Doesn't seem to be, otherwise you'd find a taxonomy
whose fundamental classes include AT LEAST "Resource", "Event", and "Agent".
Instead, I see "Party". But maybe I've missed it -- it wouldnt surprise me
given the avalanche of ebXML's documentation!

>
> However, ebXML 'Business Transactions" will still be embedded in
> larger chains of activities, as Philip Goatly descibed, and that is
> where REA as a business semantic model will be very useful
> (in representing the relationships of activities, for example,
> order-fulfillment).
>
> The ebXML BP Analysis Overview and Worksheet documents
> describe how, although not in a lot of detail.  For more detail,
> go to the UMM N090 document.  Those are "supporting documents"
> for ebXML, not normative specifications.

Thanks, I'll review it!

>
> >REA is embedded within the DCN's list of 15 resource-types. I have the
> >suspicion that the same cannot be said for the 600+ DTDs in
> xCBL, although I
> >haven't looked into it. Should I?
>
> That news about DCN is very interesting; can you point out to me
> where to look in the DCN references?
>

The DCN has a base class called DCNResource. The 15 resource-types are all
derived from it, including Event and Actor (the term "Agent" would be too
overloaded in a business context).

Other resource-/element-types involved with the commercial transaction (an
Event) include Account, Location, Product and Service, Property, System, and
Legal. Then, for representing un/structured documents, DCN resource-types
include Document, Publication, Topic, Block, and Entry.

The point of this litany is to demonstrate that REA has a data-model as much
as anything else. The design of the DCN makes a reasonable stab at it -- I
hadn't read about REA until just 2 weeks ago, but I think that the DCN
arrives at the same place as would be if a "REA Data-model" existed. While
it's certainly ok to defer the REA Process-model for the time being, I think
it is ill-advised to  defer its data-model, being as fundamental as it is to
system development.

Anyway, to answer your question directly: it is the design pattern of the
data-model that is REA-like, not a specific section of the DCN spec. The
spec is for a data-model, not a process-model. Now, could you answer my
question about the 'fit' between REA and xCBL?

Thanks,
John
Hypergrove Engineering
211 Taylor Street, Suite 32-A
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-3838 (land)

For a discussion group about the Data Consortium Namespace, please
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DCNArchitecture/join

For the latest Data Consortium Namespace Specification, please see
http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCN150.DTD.pdf or
http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCN150.DTD.doc or
http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCN150.DTD.htm

For the latest Data Consortium Dictionary, please see
http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.pdf or
http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml (IE5)