How does valueflows exactly relate to REA?
Valueflows is based on REA, that's clear. But how? Is vf aiming at compatibility with REA, or is it an backward incompatible flavor of REA? Why not just use plain REA for modelling? As REA is very unopinionated, it should also be possible to use it to model all sorts of social and solidarity p2p economy. I find it especially true as ideas from vf can make it back to REA as it is said to have already happened
I would have expected this to be explained in more detail in this text. As it seems to be a philosophical/politcal decision to use an opinionated wording for the ontology, this is particularly important. For me it is not fully clear how a "backwards incompatible" ontology helps in the transformatory situations we are facing.
I'm asking because I'm planning to model the local CSA variety for scientific context and asking myself whether I need to have two views for each model, one native REA and one as valueflows. This seems to be necessary, as vf haven't proved yet to be feature equivalent with REA, AFAIK.