RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

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

I perfectly agree, Bob.
When I quoted REA I did not want to do it in any "criticism" way, on the
contrary !
I just tried to highlight which are the differences, as of today, from the
two approaches. But I stronlgy believe the two need to converge and that by
putting them together a big gain will happen!
I agree that the two proposal are not in alternative but complementary!

Sorry for the misunderstanding
/stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: 29 January 2001 14:45
> To: 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Todd Boyle; 'Martin W Sachs'
> Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification
>
>
> <Stefano Pogliani>
> My idea, I know, is far more low-level than the one promoted by Bob. Bob's
> assumption is that the REA model would be able to account for every kind
of
> transaction. I do not object to this, but I prefer to see the things from
a
> technical standpoint where "I do not care too much" of what is an economic
> event, I care about the choreography of commercial transactions described
in
> the Specification Schema, and each trx being one or more inpiut/output
> messages.
> </Stefano Pogliani>
>
> Actually, I do not think that the REA model can account for every kind
> of ebXML transaction.  In fact, only a small part of the REA semantic
> model is used in the ebXML metamodel. It only accounts for transactions
> with economic significance.  (But that is where the accounting and
> legal considerations apply.)
>
> The problem with taking a purely technical viewpoint is that you can't
> tell from the choreography when a transaction with economic
> significance has occurred unless something in the choreography
> tells you.  The document just received does not necessarily
> do the trick.
>
> Most of the time, the BSI will only want to send economic transactions
> to legacy systems when they have been confirmed or accepted.
>
> Similarly, if the BSI includes a mapping from ebXML transactions
> to legacy systems, for the common economic transactions it will
> be easier to map to and from a canonical model (i.e. the economic
> elements in the ebXML-BP metamodel) than to each variant of
> a document used in trade.  But that gets me past anything doable
> in ebXML 1.0.
>
> I continue to think my ideas are compatible with yours, though.
> We each want to think at a different level, but I believe strongly
> that both levels (technical and business semantics) are necessary
> to doing electronic *business*, as opposed to just file transfer.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Haugen
>