This paper describes using of the Resource-Event-Agent (REA) framework to model
enterprise planning at operational level. The aim is to further utilize the possibilities and
potential of the framework in the areas with prevailing conversion rather than exchange
processes. During the modeling we came across the situation when an entity may be viewed
as two different REA concepts, which breaks the REA ontology. In the next of the paper we
suggest some rational possibility how to solve the problem. The paper also partly mentions
the mechanism of inner or nested classes that can be used for implementation of the two
different views on the entity in the given context

Hucka, Miroslav

Hunka, Frantisek

Kasik, Josef

Vymetal, Dominik

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

MPRA
Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Could a Resource be Simultaneously a
Schedule according to the REA Ontology
Frantisek Hunka and Miroslav Hucka and Josef Kasik and
Dominik Vymetal
Ostravska univerzita , Ostrava CZ, Vysoka skola banska, technicka
univerzita, Ostrava CZ, Silesian University - School of Business
Administration
10 May 2008
Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10975/
MPRA Paper No. 10975, posted 5 November 2008 01:44 UTC
Could Resource be Concurrently Schedule according to the REA Ontology  
 
Contact author: Frantisek Hunka, University of Ostrava  
Czech Republic, email: frantisek.hunka@osu.cz 
 
Other authors: Miroslav Hucka, Josef Kasik, Dominik Vymetal 
 
Abstract 
This paper describes using of the resource-event-agent (REA) framework to model enterprise 
planning at operational level. The aim is to further extend the possibilities and potential of the 
framework to the areas of prevailing conversion processes rather than exchange processes. In 
the paper we try to think about a controversial entity we encountered while attempting to 
model the area. This entity may be viewed both as a resource or a resource type and as a 
schedule. The paper tries to describe the problem and then to find some rational solution of 
the described problem.   
 
Introduction 
 
The areas of enterprise models for production planning and control at operational and policy 
levels remains under standard and in many ways rather awkward planning and accountancy 
models. These models or at least their accountancy part is formed by traditional ways and 
means and brought adequate results. Despite of its success, traditional methods have their 
limits. The main problems they have to tackle with are increasing complex of the ERP, which 
is more and more difficult to process the relevant data for the enterprise management.  
 
We see a demand for enterprise resource planning systems that would be designed from the 
scratch for the use with information technologies, which enables full traceability of all, not 
only some activities that influence the value of the enterprise’s resources. The further current 
demand is to calculate the value of the enterprise’s resources on demand, and not only at 
determined time intervals.  
    
On the other hand the REA framework offers a method that enables full traceability of all 
activities that influence the value of enterprise’s resources. It shows up that the REA 
framework is also a tool for suitable model-driven design.  
 
Production Planning and Control Model 
 
The greater attention is devoted to the REA exchange processes than the REA conversion 
processes by the examples we have studied in literature. Perhaps it is done by the fact that 
exchange processes are more obvious and draw great attention. The area of the enterprise 
production planning and control at operational and policy level draws our attention from a 
number of reasons. The main reason is that most of the authors of the paper have detailed 
professional information and knowledge of that area. However the information and 
knowledge are connected with the traditional methods and approaches that suffer from all 
earlier described drawbacks. The other reason for the special interest is that we were allocated 
by the local grant that deals with modeling enterprise processes using REA ontology. 
 
In our approach we tried to describe simple example of production planning at operational 
level by the REA concepts. The example, which is illustrated in the figure 1 is a simple one 
but with all characteristic features we met with. The short but clear description follows. 
 
 
<<agent>>
Planner
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Order (Item)
<<resource>>
Planner Labour
<<increment 
commitment>>
Plan Creation
<<resource type>>
Plan of Final 
Products
<<schedule>>
Production 
Schedule
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Material Acquisition
<<resource 
type>>
Labour Type
<<resource 
type>>
Tool Type
<<resource 
type>>
Part Type
<<increment 
commitment>>
Production Order
<<resource 
type>>
Product Type
<<resource>>
Product
<<provide>>
<<consume>>
<<duality>>
<<receive>>
<<produce>>
?
<<clause>>
<<consume
reservation>>
<<use
reservation>>
<<consume
reservation>>
<<clause>>
<<specification>>
<<reservation>>
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Tools Acquisition
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Labour Acquisition
<<conversion
duality>>
<<specification>>
 
 
Figure 1: Production Planning and Control Model 
 
 
In enterprise a production plan is made up from the customer’s orders. The production plan is 
a resource or resource type in the REA model because it was created by the planner – 
Initiator for the production manager - Terminator. At the same time the production plan is 
used as a schedule in this way for managing when events occur in the conversion process. In 
this context, the production plan (resource) contains commitments. However this construction 
is not allowed in the REA ontology. This entity seems to be a controversial one as it may be 
viewed as a resource and as a schedule too.  
 
Achieved Results 
 
Our approach and achieved results, which break the REA ontology, can be seen in the 
figure 1. Controversial relationship is noted by the question mark and connects the Plan of 
Final Products entity with the Production Schedule entity. To make the problem simple, we 
remain at the planning level as we use commitments entities and reservation relationship and 
do not go on into the detailed level with event and resource entities. 
 
Being unsatisfied with the achieved results we made another a different attempt to model the 
planning enterprise production. The model is drawn in the figure 2 noted as a Production 
Planning and Control Model – different approach. 
 
As may be seen from the figure 2 we also remain at the level of commitments to make the 
problem simple. The Product Plan is modeled as a increment commitment with a clause 
relationship to the Production Schedule. The Production Plan has exchange reciprocity 
relationship with the four decrement commitments named as Labour Acquisition, Workplace 
Acquisition, Tool Acquisition and Material Acquisition. All of these decrement commitments 
are connected to adequate type by the reverse relationship.  
 
Complex figure with the event and resource entities would be too confused for description 
and explaining the problem in a simple way.  
 
Discussion 
 
During modeling of enterprise production systems it is necessary to carefully distinguish 
between actual situation expressed by the event entity and promising situation expressed by 
the commitment entity. The other important thing that deserves attention is proper using of 
typing (distinguishing between entity type and pure entity).  
 
In our example the idea that the Plan of Final Product is a resource is correct without any 
doubts. In the same time however it must be a schedule as a Production Schedule. Except for 
the solution drawn at the figure 2 we could propose some solution based on the principle of 
using roles. As the REA modeling framework provides only concept of agent it does not 
provide rational solution. Instead of roles some type of relationship between the resource 
entity and the schedule entity should be used. 
 
Ambiguous view at an entity was described in the literature as the Prototype Abstraction 
Relation Problem, formulated by Brian Smith. The problem is that an entity (a prototype) may 
be also viewed as its instance. To model this it is necessary to be able to describe an entity 
both as an instance and as a class. This is possible in the block oriented languages with the 
possibility for declaring nested classes. This may be used for the fulfillment relationship 
between the commitment and the event entities.  
 
<<resource 
type>>
Product Type
<decrement 
commitment>>
Order (Item)
<<increment 
commitment>>
Payment Line
,,resource 
type>>
Cash Type
<<schedule>>
Production 
Schedule
<<increment 
commitment>>
Production Plan
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Tool Acquisition
<<resource type>>
Labour Type
(Technological 
Process)
<<increment 
commitment>>
Material Order 
(Item)
<<resource 
type>>
Workplace Type
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Labour Acquisition
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Workplace 
Acquisition
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Material 
Acquisition
<<resource 
type>>
Tool Type
<<resource 
type>>
Material Type
<<decrement 
commitment>>
Payment Line
<<resource type>>
Cash Type
Linkage 
(bill of material)
<<reserve>> <<exchange reciprocity>> <<reserve>>
<<reserve>>
<<clause>>
<<clause>>
<<clause>>
<<clause>>
<<clause>>
<<clause>><<exchange reciprocity>>
<<reserve>>
<<reserve>>
<<reserve>>
<<reserve>>
<<reserve>><<exchange reciprocity>><<reserve>>
 
 
 
Figure 2: Production Planning and Control Model – different approach 
 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
In the paper a two different approaches to production planning and control model were 
presented. However the first approach does not fit the current REA ontology so another 
solution of the problem was proposed. There may be possibly some other solution or 
approach solving the problem. 
 
References 
 
Geerts GL, McCarthy WE (2000a) The Ontological Foundation of the REA Enterprise 
Information Systems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Accounting 
Association. Philadelphia, PA. 
Geerts GL, McCarthy WE (2002) An Ontological Analysis of the Primitives of the Extended 
REA Enterprise Information Architecture at http://www.msu.edu/user/mccarth4/ 
Hruby P Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 
2006 


Could a Resource be Simultaneously a Schedule according to the REA Ontology

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10975/1/MPRA_paper_10975.pdf

Could a Resource be Simultaneously a Schedule according to the REA Ontology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Munich Personal RePEc Archive