[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [ebBP] 7/28/2004: WI-71 isLegallyBinding Update [RSD]
Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.WI71-Commitments and Enforceability; Topic|; Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/6697/ebbp-swedish-input-ubac-summary-v2pt0-042004.txt; Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200407/msg00123.html; Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200407/msg00065.html; Point|v2.0 ebBP UPDATED proposed resolution; mm1@ PLEASE PLAN TO COME TO DISCUSS IN MONDAY'S CALL 2 AUGUST 2004: In Monday's call, we continued the discussion on how to support international eCommerce and enforceability, and the isLegallyBinding attribute in legacy ebBP. Most questions raised surrounded whether it inferred test or production capabilities and what was the intent of the attribute (and potential impact on technology). Jamie Clark, OASIS, attended Monday's call to provide the historical background on isLegallyBinding attribute [1] which could be: 1. An abstract definition of contract jurisdictions. Give evidence. Name associated with approval. 'Intent to be bound.' i.e. Solemnization: intent to be a binding contract and expectation of being responsible. 2. Associated with digital signatures which have been used (or possibly misused) for many reasons (re. XMLDSIG) such as authenticate identity of the signature and indicate legal signature. Whether or not appropriate is in question. Points Clark and others made: * It is good to have explicit element to make it clear in ebXML BPSS. Bind to use. This allows us to associate ebBP to a contract or expectation. * Note, that a binding may not be valid or illegal purpose. It is better I say 'I intend to be legally bound.' Therefore, isLegallyBinding is about INTENT. 'I intend this be legally binding', with the difference being that it doesn't preclude other conditions that may not allow the collaboration to be legally binding (when is for an invalid purpose, such as sending an invoice when you have not accepted an order). * What do we mean about this attribute? It gives an affirmation. o Test messages could also be identified. However, if you don't say intent, you have a somewhat farther reach to prove in court. o Explicit reference gives more clarity. * May be practical to in the future take more input from the community. * It gives more clarity, but we have a value judgment to make here. The 'isLegallyBinding' attribute is a conservative approach. The intent is not to make this a runtime attribute. Doing this at design time does not reduce its value or intent. There are other ways to renew accent or confirmation of the intent (at runtime). As I previously indicated, attribute could be placed on binary collaboration to set flags that apply to ebMS at a minimum (intent not bind). Updated proposal: * Continue discussion for more v2.0 input on 2 August 2004. * Propose to change isLegallyBinding to isLegallyEnforceable or isLegallyIntent. [2] * Propose to change to an element to allow for further clarity or detail. This may assist in meeting UBAC requirements. * Add clarifying description provided in historical information from Clark about in addition to inputs from UBAC and ebBP team, and from eCommerce patterns paper. [3] Open Items: 1. Once a decision is made, quantify how this might, if at all, affect ebMS or CPPA. With the differentiation between intent and binding. [1] Has existed in ebBP since v1.01 and references back to eCommerce patterns paper. [2] From 14 July 2004 proposal. [3] Excerpt from ebXML BPSS technical specification: I've highlighted parts of the section with <<xxx>>. "Trading partners may wish to indicate that a Business Transaction performed as part of an ebXML arrangement is, or is not, intended to be binding. A <<<declaration of intent to be bound>>> is a key element in establishing the legal equivalence of an electronic message to an enforceable signed physical writing. Parties may create explicit evidence of that intent by (1) adopting the ebXML Business Process Specification Schema standard and (2) manipulating the parameter ("isLegallyBinding") designated by the standard to indicate that intent. <<<In some early electronic applications, trading partners have simply used the presence, or absence, of an electronic signature (such as under the XML- DSIG standard) to indicate that intent. However, documents which rely solely on the presence of a signature may or may not be correctly interpreted, if there is semantic content indicating that a so-called contract is a draft, or nonbinding, or the like.>>> In ebXML, the presence or absence of an electronic signature cannot indicate by itself legally binding assent, because XML-DSIG signatures are reserved for other uses as an assurance of sender identity and message integrity."" ================================== References: a. eCommerce Patterns v1.0: http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm#whitepapers, See Under Technical Reports. b. UBAC slides: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/6584/UBAC_overview_allslides_20040312.pdf Note: Look specifically at slides 4, 5 and 29 - a shortened set will be provided and uploaded. c. UBAC requirements: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/6697/ebbp-swedish-input-ubac-summary-v2pt0-042004.txt; d. Draft schema (7/26): http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200407/msg00123.html; e. Proposal summary, Martin (7/14): http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200407/msg00065.html; Other UBAC references found in 7/14 proposal. @mm1
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]