RE: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition

["Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>]

Kesuke-san:

I assume that you are talking about the fact that the signals are
predefined in v2.0 and the example BT that you give has signals on the
request but not on the response?

Is it a desirable feature? What would be the problem of using a
CommercialTransaction which has signals on both? (I understand that an
acceptance signal is normally issued by a back end system via the BSI,
therefore requires to modify or develop the back end system for this
requirement).

In 2.0 you can also define your own patterns which could support this
one.

Jean-Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: yano@jp.fujitsu.com [mailto:yano@jp.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:27 AM
To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition

Folks,

Please let me put a question.  Can BPSS v2.0 allow a user to define
the following Business Transaction valid for 1.01 and 1.05?

The points are:
  - using both receipt and acceptance acknowledgment signals
  - without response

  <BusinessTransaction name="BT:Invoice" nameID="bt-invoice">
      <RequestingBusinessActivity
          name="ReqBA:SendInvoice" nameID="reqba-invoice"
          timeToAcknowledgeReceipt="PT6H"
          timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance="PT12H">
          <DocumentEnvelope name="DE:ProcessInvoice" nameID="de-invoice"
              businessDocument="BD:ProcessInvoice"
              businessDocumentIDRef="bd-invoice"/>
      </RequestingBusinessActivity>
      <RespondingBusinessActivity
          name="ResBA:ReceiveInvoice" nameID="resba-invoice"/>
  </BusinessTransaction>

The answer for the question should be "yes".  However, it seems that
the v2.0 draft schema is saying "no".

If the answer is "yes", could anyone show an example of the BPSS 2.0
instance fragment?

Thanks,

Yano Keisuke