Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 11/2/2004: Schema #4 - HasLegalIntent Attribute

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

Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:

>We should make the default value for this attribute "false", to avoid
>errors.
>  
>
mm1: OK. Any team inputs appreciated.

>Also, I don't think this is a BSI precondition thing below. It is rather
>a well formedness rule, i.e. this attribute can only be true if
>- reliable, tamper detectable, non repudiation, authenticated and
>authorized are true (note that authorized is implicit via CPA) 
>  
>
mm1: It is also a well-formedness rule. It is also an indication of 
automated mechanisms in the BSI that can support it. No BSI precondition 
is specified. What is said is:

....."This constraint could be used as a substantive and enforceable precondition on the BTA. The mechanisms in 
the BSI that provide the capability to support this precondition"....

>I don't know what predictability is
>  
>
mm1: I had a list that included this but can't locate it right now. OK 
to delete.

>I don't think there is any need to relate confidential to
>hasLegalIntent, this is usually true but I don't understand why it MUST
>be true.
>
mm1: This is a key part of the capabilities inferred in an intentional 
process. See UMM R10, Chapter 8 and the eCommerce Patterns. In the 
former document, this relates to document integrity (to business 
document and its properties). Relates to encryption and ensuring 
unauthorized parties the capability to view. In the latter document, it 
is related to enforceability and the business signal parameters.

Given some comments by Dale, I'll send a subsequent email as I don't 
want to confuse the discussion (any more than it already is). Thanks.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
>Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:22 PM
>To: ebXML BP
>Cc: James Bryce Clark; kelly.d.ray@us.pwc.com
>Subject: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 11/2/2004: Schema #4 - HasLegalIntent
>Attribute
>Importance: High
>
>On Monday, we discussed this slightly revised text for the 
>HasLegalIntent attribute. I am specifically asking Jamie Clark and Kelly
>
>Ray to review.
>
>"This attribute is an optional character that could represents a 
>statement or commitment between trading partners, and their shared 
>intent. Referencing the eCommerce Patterns v1.0, the digital signature 
>cannot in and of itself infer intent [1]. This constraint exists on a 
>Business Transaction Activity. This constraint could be used as a 
>substantive and enforceable precondition on the BTA. The mechanisms in 
>the BSI that provide the capability to support this precondition are:
> a. reliability
> b. document security: confidential, tamper detectable and authenticated
> c. nonrepudiation
> d. authorization
> e. predictability
>
>An offer must be resolved whether intentional or not. The contractual 
>framework, agreements and their application to any  artifact are outside
>
>of this specification.
>
>hasLegalIntent could have widely differing interpretations and 
>enforceability depending on type of business, process, and 
>jurisdiction.  No implication of interpretation or enforcability is made
>
>by the ebBP committee.
>
>Reference eCommerce Patterns, v1.0, May 2001, 
>http://www.ebxml.org/specs/bpPATT.pdf.";
>
>Feedback is requested this week from all team members. Thanks.
>
>Original reference: 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200411/msg00004.html
>
>  
>