Retitled: UMM and BP models clarification of remark

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Stuff I wrote:
> in exchange for the product or service (a payment, for 
> example). [Otherwise we might have a hard time distinguishing 
> "selling" from "giving".] UMM inspired business process models so far 
> do not capture cleanly these richer business process relational 
> descriptions, but that is not necessarily a shortcoming.
>
Anders comments:
Im not sure I follow you here. UMM is in fact one of few electronic
collaboration frameworks outside research labs that actually *in* the
framework has support for business semantics such as selling and giving,
its simple REA. Selling - money for goods, Giving - only money or goods 
in one direction.In most other frameworks the business come into play by
*usage* of the 
framework.

Anders, I agree that the UMM "has it all, or when it doesn't, it will
have it in the next version"! That is what the UMM aspires to accomplish
apparently.

I was actually thinking that BPSS itself ( a "UMM inspired" work) did
not have much in the way of representing REA stuff/business entities
(yet).

I recall hearing UMM experts noting that BPSS was still document/message
centric,and did not deal with interactions directly involving
exchange/movement/transition of non-informational entities, which
Martin, I recall, indicated was a known limitation of BPSS. [One that I
think he hoped would be corrected.]

I myself was indicating that I personally am not certain that this
limitation is really a shortcoming (that is, not sure it needs fixing).
Hope that clarifies my intent.