[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: ebbp 3/30/2005: Technical Options for Comment re: CommercialTransaction (wd10-schema 2/22)
In our call yesterday, we had some discussion about the comment raised by Pim vanderEijk regarding the Commercial Transaction BT pattern. This comment could resolved in several ways. We originally proposed only an name change but Dale requested we discuss: 1. Create of two different named elements based on the same pattern (and complex type). A question was raised if the two elements could diverge and create confusion. 2. Change CommercialTransaction to BusinessTransaction and update annotation. 3. Investigate if we could create a reference in XML schema that maintained the visibility to the pattern and accommodated the question raised. ============= Comment from: lists@sonnenglanz.net A terminological comment on the "Commercial Transaction" pattern (WD page 27): There are many public sector projects that use parts of ebXML today and could benefit from ebBP to model and coordinate interactions. The adjective "commercial" is a bit unfortunate? I realize this term originates in UMM, but for expressing "formal obligation between parties" the term "commercial transaction" seems to be less neutral than the term "Business Transaction" under which the spec says it is colloquially] known. Any chance of changing this back to a more neutral term? ============= Dale has an action to see if we can pursue the third option. This serves as a reminder. Thanks.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]