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

[Kenji Nagahashi <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Hi

Sorry it was a slip of the finger to write "transport level". I meant 
"pending" is not part of BT.
RosettaNet communicates "pending" through responding action, not through 
signal.

Buyer sends purchase order request to seller, and the seller sends 
response message back with
line item status set to "pending", thus completing the first BT (PIP).
Later the seller initiates another BT to notify the buyer with new value 
in line item status -- either positive or negative confirmation, or even 
"pending" again. This could occur many times.

I found some people see this modeling inconvenient and wanted to pack 
those multiple transactions into one BT,
which is not possible with current BPSS. It might have something to do 
with David's point.

Is anybody really interested in this example?

Kenji

David RR Webber wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>