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

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

>> 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").


Dale> Dale can't clarify more because he is not an internation legal
expert, and was only really repeating what he took to be the common
understanding,
gathered from RosettaNet and ebXML, of what the AcceptanceAck or Nack
amounted to.

The legitimacy requirements are roughly of the sort that Monica
mentions. 

I believe that it is a matter of the specifics of a contract, and not
international law,
that gives legitimacy to a specific bilateral meaning. Of course, laws
might pertain to
those contracts, but again I am not the one to ask. 

I am sympathetic to Anders's view that the term "Acceptance" is really
not the best one here.
So the question to me is how to reconcile BPSS tradition with Anders's
point.

Maybe we should try to tie terminology to the kind of state alignment
that is
attained through the use of these formerly-known-as-Acceptance signals.
Maybe JJ 
or John Y. could come up with terminology satifactory to all?



> 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.

Dale> I used UNCITRAL because I, perhaps mistakenly, thought it to be
the origin of some
of the BT patterns that BPSS was calling out. The signal stuff is, of
course, part of BPSS
state alignment augmentation for the eb part of ebXML. Anders is right
that it has nothing to
do with UNCITRAL (as far as I know-- maybe John Yunker could provide
background here). However,
in Martin's current approach to patterns and signals (from 3 !! f2fs ago
in SantaClara), each pattern has
its signal envelopes defined _within the pattern.