Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 7/29/2004: WI-39 re: Acceptance Ack [RSD]

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

> Tell: Dale,
>
> "Business Acknowledgment" is a term wich is largly undefined and one 
> can simply give it a meaning by definition,stipulation.
> "Acceptance" on the other hand is *welldefined* term occuring in 
> almost *all* countries *laws*. Using terms in wrong contexts only 
> confuses people, which is the case with BT and the signal in question.

mm1: Anders, can you then provide some insight here as I am somewhat 
confused? The UMM explicitly reference the 'acknowledgement of 
acceptance' and UMM references LG Recommendations 26 and 31. It 
separates this from the acknowledgement of receipt and response. Will 
these changes be also suggested back to TMG to align legal concepts with 
those held in the metamodel and reference guide?

> Have a look a papiNet and their Business Acknowledgement
> <http://www.papinet.org/V2R20/200401/documents/BusinessAckV2R20.pdf>
>
> Where a positive BA is an indication that the automatic transaction 
> was successfully processed in receivers ERP system. 

mm1: I'll review and thank you for the reference.

> The definition given does *not* correlate with the term Acceptance in 
> a global business collaboration context. 

mm1: See previous comment regarding UMM. Can you provide us some clarity?

>> Moberg: I am not certain that "Business Acknowledgment" captures the 
>> meaning of
>> this signal accurately.
>>
>> The old Acceptance Acknowledgment indicated that the (received) business
>> document had been
>> 1. checked to see whether it was a legitimate request and 2. that 
>> those checks indicated that it had been accepted for a pending
>> business decision, so that 3. a firm commitment existed to inform the 
>> requester of the outcome of
>> that decision in the agreed upon manner by the agreed upon time.
>>
>> This seems to be a more specific meaning than "Business Acknowledgment"  
>
> What does "legitimate request" mean? For whom is it legitimate and 
> what are the objectivly verifiable criterias? 

mm1: Although I can't speak for Dale (who could clarify more so), 
legitimate is 'adheres to standards or rules,' i.e. it adheres to a 
schema (syntactically correct) and can be handed over for processing or 
processed. In the ebBP, intelligible is also addressed ("Legible means 
that it has passed structure/ schema validity check. The content of the 
receipt and the legibility of a message (if required) are reviewed prior 
to the processing of the Business Document or the evaluation of 
condition expressions in the message's business documents or document 
envelope").

> What does "*accepted* for pending business decison" mean to the 
> receiver in legal sence? Almost nothing unless a side contract spells 
> out the terms & conditions related to it. A business meaning may be 
> that the requestor may decide to take a *risk* and act on it.
>
> What does " a firm *comittment*" mean in a legal sence when the 
> requester does NOT know which decision that is to be taken?
> What happens when the "firm commitment" is not fullfilled? Almost 
> nothing in above definition unless a side contract spells out the 
> terms & conditions related to it.
> All in all, "Business Acknowledgment"  is a business signal that the 
> parties can risk acting on when received. 

mm1: On "accepted" question, see definition above. Would not guidance be 
provided by the legal community (where and if appropriate) as the risk 
element could fall in that domain, correct?

>> in documenting the BP patterns from UNCITRAL
>
> Please leave UNCITRAL out of the discussion since it has nothing to do 
> with BT and its current construction.

mm1: I believe Dale meant that the guiding principles we have 
historically looked to in the UMM map to legal recommendations [1] (and 
hopefully are in line with UNCITRAL). Are you saying that the BT is not 
in line with legal and business ecommerce constructs?  Can you please 
explain?

[1] UN Recommendations 26 and 31.

Thanks.