[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition
I think what Kesuke-san means is that he wants to support both receipt and acceptance acknowledgment signals in a Notification pattern (ie there is no business response but the sender wants to be sure that the request document was accepted by the recipient's back office system). We have also encountered this pattern - particularly for the invoice transaction. Most systems today do not support the issue of an "invoice response" upon receipt of an invoice - and yet the invoice process is clearly one that requires a high level of transactional integrity. The UMM notification pattern does not (by default) define an acceptance signal. However I dont see any reason why the transaction characteristics for a notification pattern cannot define a value for "time to accept" and therefore trigger a BSI to create an acceptance signal? Steve Capell Red Wahoo Pty Ltd +61 410 437854 -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com] Sent: Monday, 8 November 2004 7:57 PM To: YANO Keisuke (????) Cc: ebXML BP Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]