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

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

Anders W. Tell wrote:

> Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> Interesting comment,observation. This is how the Std Business 
> Acknowledge principles are constructed. The exact specifications of 
> what each specific type of Acknowledge says/means are communicated 
> through elaboration of a single Signal/Ack message.
>
> Surprisingly enough it seems as if it is possible to fold many (dare I 
> say most;) signals/acks into one construct, ebMS, Ack, BPSS, 
> ReceiptAc, BPSS, AcceptanceAck, Exception, Ws-Reliability Ack, papiNet 
> Business Ack, CONTROL, APERAK etc all seem to fit. Since the signal is 
> explicit one can also handle some variations and increasing degrees of 
> legibilities established in different legal jurisdiction and by 
> industry organizations.
>
> Ive run the idea by a few industry groups such as ICC, SFTI and GEA 
> with positive response. More on SBA later this autoum.
>
> thanks
> /anders

mm1: This blurs the separation between the messaging and process areas.  
Is this work being conducted outside of those groups? If so, please 
explain why? Thank you.