RE: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition

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

I think we should ask for some feedback about whether the concrete business transactions (Commercial Transaction, Request Response,... are enough or are there some common "patterns" that are missing). I don't see a problem adding a few at this point, on the other hand it would hurt interoperability if we did not have enough.
 
JJ-

________________________________

From: Steve Capell [mailto:steve.capell@redwahoo.com]
Sent: Mon 11/8/2004 12:00 PM
To: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'YANO Keisuke (????)'
Cc: 'ebXML BP'
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