Dear Martin, I would favor co-occurence, as a single Aquisition can have multiple payments involved and vice versa. In standardised environments, say in a database, where a special type of aquisition is documented, which always imply only one single payment, the model could be simplified - but in the reference model two node types (aquisition and payment) should be explicit. I think it is easier for data-modellers creating an instance of the crm to "fold in" than to "fold out".
max. Dr. des. Maximilian Schich M.A. adr.: Westendstrasse 80 | D-80339 München | Germany tel.: +49-179-6678041 | skype: maximilian.schich mail: [email protected] | home: www.schich.info CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. martin schrieb: > Dear All, > > We can continue to regard payments as being covered by a "has note", > and can regard financial things to be out of practical scope. > > We could also regard sales prices as properties of an exchange object, > and foresee in general Acquisitions to be associated with a compensation? > The problem is, that payments have a weak identity. > > We could simply add a link to Acquisition: "exchanged against", > which could be payment or objects, or only objects. > > Is payment then an immaterial object, an information carrier ? > > Or is payment a particular activity with the monetary value as a > dimension, and cooccurring with the acquisition? > > Could we think of a "financial extension" to the CRM? > > Opinions? > > Best, > > martin >
