RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Bob,

	here some comments:
> 
> However, the boundary between internal and collaboration (external) 
> is fuzzy and changing - aspects which used to be internal are
> becoming externalized, for example virtual inventory.

	I understand this but what is the discriminating factor is
	the "business functionality". I mean, independently on the fact
	that an application is given out to some ASP, it remains an
	application in the sense that it implements the activity that
	needs to be performed.
	A collaboration describes the choreography under which 
	activities may be performed.

> 
> The full BP metamodel contains some "economic elements"
> based on Bill McCarthy's REA ontology that will allow trading
> partners to use things like orders and fulfillments
> in a generic way.  For example, it is important in a collaboration
> model to determine when important business events can be
> recognized - e.g. orders accepted and receipts confirmed.
> You can't necessarily tell just from single business document.
> Those recognized events can also be the hooks for sending
> the ebXML  documents to the internal business apps.
> 

	Exactly.
	In a Business Process Modelling way, this would correspond
	to the logic evaluating the transition to a new state.


> For example, if I send you a purchase order request and
> you reject it, we may not want it to go into either of our 
> internal business apps.  Likewise an Advanced Shipping
> Notice that is not confirmed by my receiving people.

	I am not sure I am buying it completely.
	What you say would imply that the "middleware" would
	be intelligent enough to decide that it is not worth
	to bother the legacy.
	I would like to have this, though (as written in my paper)

> 
> Those economic elements are not yet incorporated in the
> "Specification Schema", but I am working on it and hope to
> get something useful specified by Feb 17.
> 

	Good luck ! Looking forward for this 

/Stefano