Re: [ebxml-bp] Transaction Model

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

Anders W. Tell wrote:

> 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
>
mm1: Anders, do you believe that these concepts should be further 
defined in UBAC and discussed with ebBP in order to provide changes to 
the UMM? Thanks.