Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: Dubray 8/19/2004: isIntelligibleCheckRequired

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

>Serm: May I ask a novice question. Why does BPSS need this attribute? Can't it
>just be specified in the signal that the message is not readable.
>  
>
mm2: I'll defer to JJ or Dale (everyone) to add to this response. I'd 
say that this is a function outside of the Receipt Acknowledgment. Here 
is the refined text Serm proposed.  Are you suggesting that a flag be 
provided in the Receipt Acknowledgment? Thanks.

  PROPOSED:  Legible means that the document envelope must pass
    structural/schema validation, including all documents in the
    document envelope which have a schema (XSD or other) associated to
    them. The content of the receipt and the legibility of a message (if
    required) are reviewed prior to the business (substantive)
    processing of the Business Document or the evaluation of condition
    expressions in the message's business documents or document envelope.

    Receiving party must check that a requesting [or responding]
    document is not garbled (unreadable, unintelligible) before sending
    acknowledgement of receipt. This parameter is specified on the
    sending side.(See also section on core transaction semantics).

Reference: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00046.html

>Dubray: Would it be correct to say: the document envelope must pass
>structural/schema validation, including all documents in the document
>envelope which have a schema (XSD or other) associated to them.
>
>mm1: In the v2.0 document we need to ensure that this attribute's meaning is
>clear throughout. In the descriptive text, we indicate the attribute
>(='true') restricts sending the Receipt Acknowledgment unless the
>message passes structural/schema validation. In the xmlspy sections
>later (6.1.25 and 6.1.26), we indicate for RequestingBusinessActivity
>and RespondingBusinessActivity, that 'the document' passes that check.
>We need to ensure it is either the message or the business document
>consistently in the technical specification.
>  
>