Re: [ebxml-bp] Transaction Model

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

martin.me.roberts@bt.com wrote:

>JJ,
>  I agree with the sentiment of looking beyond the borders of UMM,  however the use of the interchange patterns that were there put a useful set of constraints on the work and enabled some measure of rigour that might not have been there.  It is the patterns that have caused the most interest from our internal people as we try to standardise the ineractions within our organisation.
>

IMHO These transaction patterns is one of those artifacts in a dialog 
specification that makes it a *business* protocol. Without a relation to 
established business practices and legal principles a protocol soon 
becomes a message exchange protocol. So the Commercial Transactions 
relation to the legal ecommerce convention UN Recommendation 31 is 
infact very important.

>  
>So where does that leave us.  I feel that settling this would enable the rest to fit into place.  Therefore my question could be re cast as what interaction patterns are we planning to use.
>  
>

The UMM basic set of transactions goes along way but there seems to a 
need for a Offer-Acceptance transaction wich is a superset of the 
Commercial transaction. By adding Invitation ,Withdrawal, Revocation, 
Late Acceptance and Notice messages as well a definition of dispatch and 
reach, more of key legal principles such a UNIDROIT, UNCITRAL, UN CISG, 
Priciples of European Contract Law and UN Rec 31 are covered.

/anders

-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website: <www.toolsmiths.se>      /
/ email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>    /
/ phone: +46 8 545 885 87           /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////