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

[Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net>]

Folks,

     Is REA part of UMM - if so I think it must have crept in since the last
meeting of the TMWG ;-).

    Perhaps Klaus Dieter Naujok - as chairman of TMWG would like to comment.

Cheers, Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Haugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>
To: "'John McClure'" <hypergrove@olympus.net>; "Philip Goatly"
<philip.goatly@bolero.net>
Cc: <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: REA (was Tags and semantics ( was Dotted Names) )


> John McClure:
> >Anyway, it would be reassuring to understand how ebXML plans to implement
> >the REA model -- I've had a hard time finding it in the CC spreadsheet or
> >other documents to-date -- maybe someone could give me a pointer to that?
>
> REA is included in the UN/CEFACT UMM Metamodel, which is the
> business process modeling methodology mandated by the ebXML
> Technical Architecture if you are going to do UML modeling.
>
> 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.  More work will be done in followup activities,
> to be announced in Vienna.
>
> 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.
>
> >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?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Haugen
>
>