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

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

>Moberg: 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?
>
mm1: This was my original question on what new names could apply. Thanks.

>>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. 
>
UNECE coordinates with UNCITRAL (per web site) and CEFACT is part of the 
former. The UMM maps to UN (legal) recommendations 26 and 31 and UMM 
defines the patterns that include 'acknowledgment of receipt' and 
'acknowledgment of acceptance.' The signals are expressions of these two 
acknowledgments so the signal and pattern association is appropriate. I 
am a layman and would welcome some clarification of what hiearchy needs 
to be understood to know the guiding principle. Thanks.