Re: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Kenji,

Yes - the 'pending' is part of the BTA.   I guess in the 
case of a distributor - it confirms that an attempt is
being made to find source(s) for product(s) requested.

In that sense its a binding attempt to provide that,
and as you say - the answer could be - 'no source found'.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenji Nagahashi" <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services


> Hi,
> 
> This "pending" sounds like business level semantics, which should not be 
> handled at the transport level.
> I can provide an example from RosettaNet which supports such "pending" 
> status response. While the response message itself is legally binding, 
> but you can say "no" later in update message.
> There might be a confusion about "legally binding". "legally binding" 
> means that you're liable for what you said in the message ("pending" in 
> this case), not for selling something no matter what your downstream 
> supplier say...?
> 
> Kenji
> 
> David RR Webber wrote:
> 
> > Monica,
> > 
> > I believe this came out of a scenario that Anders described - where
> > he want to Ack the RFQ - but not confirm it until downstream suppliers
> > had responded.
> > 
> > Therefore 'pending' was offered as an additional status.  Anders also
> > wanted to make sure that the signal was *not* a legally binding
> > response - hence 'pending' again avoids that connotation.
> > 
> > It all made sense to me at the time - and I included this in the 
> > XML example I posted on signals - along with the additional
> > two attributes - (BTW - signalType - agree that is not needed - 
> > and can be deferred to V3).
> > 
> > Thanks, DW
> > 
> > 
> >>mm1: David, I do not recall that we defin3ed a pending status in the 
> >>special sessions. Dale, can you confirm please. Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
>