[Crm-sig] Issue, payments

Maximilian Schich maximilian at schich.info
Fri Oct 3 12:26:56 EEST 2008

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".


Dr. des. Maximilian Schich M.A.
adr.: Westendstrasse 80 | D-80339 München | Germany
tel.: +49-179-6678041 | skype: maximilian.schich
mail: maximilian at schich.info | 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

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list