RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Todd,

I don't have a good picture in my mind of what this "economic exchange
event" would be or how it would be manifested in the CPA.  I don't
understand how an "economic exchange event" could be recognized below the
level of the application. It seems to me that this event is part of the BP
metamodel and needs to be defined in the BP Specification Schema, perhaps
using signals rather than business messages. Using signals would perhaps
enable the B2B middleware to handle the event in an application-independent
manner.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



"Todd Boyle" <tboyle@rosehill.net> on 01/26/2001 01:32:33 PM

To:   "Bob Haugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>, "'Stefano POGLIANI'"
      <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "Xbrl-Public" <xbrl-public@egroups.com>
Subject:  RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification



I advocate that ebXML provide a mechanism for communicating to both
parties the point where an economic exchange has happened (recognition).

I will argue that ebXML should include this mechanism within its scope
rather than delegate recognition to the separate accounting applications.

Delegation is harmful to small business because it greatly increases the
processing logic on their site, effectively this perpetuates a lot of
human intervention to record entries.  It increases their costs by causing
inconsistent recognition by the parties and out-of-reconcilation payables
and receivables.  It increases professional services costs (semantic
interpretation of ambiguous entries).

You said, http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-tp/200101/msg00165.html

   My focus here is recognition of economic events
   from legal and accounting viewpoints.  For example,
   when ownership of an economic resource changes hands
   is part of the public logic of the collaboration.  Likewise
   the rules for when contractual agreements have been
   formed.  So it's not like the collaboration software
   decides to bother the legacy system, it's more like
   some EAI layer can use these recognition events
   as hooks.

   Jamie Clark of the ABA will have a lunch-and-learn in
   Vancouver about legal ramifications of ebXML business
   collaborations.  I plan to attend and take notes.

This is great information.

The GAAP recognition of economic events is highly connected with the
legal recognition.  Developers on the ebXML mailing lists have sometimes
argued the vocabulary should be uncoupled from the legal domain for
various purposes (I refer to the recent controversy over using the word
"Partner" or "Party" in XML schemas isasmuch as they have binding
legal meanings.)  I am only interested in GAAP and legally binding.

Supporting transactions to be legally binding is within the scope of ebXML,
of course.  Klaus-Dieter Naujok said as much in his October 19 post.
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-architecture/200010/msg00127.html
I presume everybody agrees on this point.

In conclusion I advocate event notification to both parties concurrently
sufficient for accounting recognition, rather than delegating the
interpretation and timing of economic events to the individual
applications.

Todd