Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 7/29/2004: WI-39 re: Acceptance Ack [RSD]

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

> Tell:
>
>>> "Acceptance" on the other hand is *welldefined* term occuring in 
>>> almost *all* countries *laws*. Using terms in wrong contexts only 
>>> confuses people, which is the case with BT and the signal in question.
>>
>>
>> "Business Acknowledgment" is a term wich is largly undefined and one 
>> can simply give it a meaning by definition,stipulation.
>>
>> mm1: Anders, can you then provide some insight here as I am somewhat 
>> confused? The UMM explicitly reference the 'acknowledgement of 
>> acceptance' and UMM references LG Recommendations 26 and 31. It 
>> separates this from the acknowledgement of receipt and response. 
>
> Tell2: Are you sure that the described ebBP AA has the "identical" 
> semantics as UMM AA in all cases? The UMM AA semantics (sometimes) 
> include Contract Acceptance meaning which usually comes after a 
> business decision.
>
> The ebBP supports only a subset of UN Rec, 26, 31, considerations so 
> there is more to do. 


mm2: That is largely because the UMM does not separate contract 
acceptance from the business transaction as the UBAC is still working to 
effect changes in that or a subsequent guiding document.

In addition, when UBAC has formalized its requirements, it can submit 
those to CEFACT and propose them as well to groups like ebBP.  Don't you 
have to have requirements identified before identifying gaps. As I had 
stated previously and is reinforced by your statements, the 
clarifications should occur in the UMM. Are you going to submit your 
requirements to ebBP; I have some documents from you but they were not 
publicly available to the team.

> A an interesting example from UN Rec 26
> --------------
> "The Agreement contemplates an important exception:
> under certain national commercial or administrative laws,
> the sending of a communication, whether or not in
> electronic form, is given certain legal effect, whether or
> not received in fact by the intended recipient. For example,
> a buyer sending a notice of defective goods preserves
> its rights, even if the seller does not receive the communication."
> ....
> "Since certain types of Messages may have legal effects not
> favourable to a receiving party (for example, a notice of
> defective goods sent to a seller), Section 3.2.2 does not
> permit the receiving party to deprive a Message, when
> received, from having legal effect by failing to send a
> required acknowledgement."

mm1: This is an important point that we (other seasoned ebXML BPSS team 
members) discussed [1] with several of the UMM participants. However, 
the acknowledgments in specific circumstances were not seen as 
substantive by the UMM group.  This seems to indicate otherwise; should 
not UMM changes be considered? See previous comment about submissions to 
ebBP. Thanks.

Perhaps the UBAC team can allocate a resource to assist us in finalizing 
the 'reach' element which also figures into the information provided 
above. Thanks.

[1] debated