Re: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition

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

>Capell: 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?
>  
>
mm1: Steve, we discussed this today in the TC call. I think we have a 
good way to resolve. Please stay tuned for the notes and an updated 
schema. We should separate the defined BT patterns (which may map to UMM 
as you indicated), such as the Commercial Transaction, and patterns 
accepted by communities such as JEITA and RosettaNet. Please follow the 
list over the next couple of days and you'll see some proposed 
suggestions that we believe will be sufficient. [1]

Thanks.

[1] Kenji Nagahashi, Fujitsu, believed the solution would help JEITA 
meet their requirements.