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

["Boonserm \(Serm\) Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov>]

--- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>;
<sallystamand@yahoo.com>; <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: Dubray 8/19/2004: isIntelligibleCheckRequired


>
> >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.

<serm>I think it can be subsumed by the Receipt Ack if the spec necessitates
so. I guess one of the questions I am asking is why do we need the
flexibility to turn that on and off, what are the real use cases? I also
think that it is ultimately the application/middleware that decides whether
the message is legible/understandable. Hence it is also a function of NOF.
The XSD validation does not mean that it will be legible by the app/mw and
the document may be EDI.
</serm>

>
>   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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>