[Fwd: Re: Ray 9/9/2004: ebBP Work Item Session 10 Sept]

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

We can consider these comments in our discussion today or next week. 
Thanks to Kelly, who can't attend today, for the input.

kelly.ray@us.pwc.com wrote:

> Monica - since I can't be there, here is my input on the issue after 
> further thought that you may want to bring to the table for discussion.
>
> The question on naming is irrelevant - you can call it "blue" so long 
> as the documentation accompanying the element or attribute describes 
> the conditions under which the value of the tag should be one way 
> versus another.  
>
> The more important question is whether the tag should be part of the 
> schema.  My answer to that question is it depends on whether this is 
> meant to be human selectable or the output of business rules.  If it 
> is meant to be an indicator output based on business rules, then keep 
> it.  If it is human selectable, then I can conceive of no upside 
> benefit to having the tag.  The person's selection can only be either: 
>  consistent with the nature of the content being exchanged - in which 
> case it adds nothing over what we know from the nature of the content 
> -- or, it can be inconsistent - in which case, we've now introduced a 
> factual dispute into the transaction which has to go to a jury. 
>  Moreover, if not associated to specific elements of the payload 
> (which could go down to words or clauses in a document) rather than a 
> single flag for the entire payload then it introduces confusion over 
> which pieces of the payload are covered and which are not.
>
> Thanks,
> Kelly D. Ray
> Director
> Advisory Services
> PricewaterhouseCoopers
>
> (home office) 972-881-2420
> (voicemail/fax) 214-853-4264
> (cell) 972-896-5834
> kelly.ray@us.pwc.com
>

--- Begin Message ---

• From: kelly.ray@us.pwc.com
• To: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM
• Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:33:34 -0500

Monica - since I can't be there, here is my input on the issue after further thought that you may want to bring to the table for discussion.

The question on naming is irrelevant - you can call it "blue" so long as the documentation accompanying the element or attribute describes the conditions under which the value of the tag should be one way versus another.  

The more important question is whether the tag should be part of the schema.  My answer to that question is it depends on whether this is meant to be human selectable or the output of business rules.  If it is meant to be an indicator output based on business rules, then keep it.  If it is human selectable, then I can conceive of no upside benefit to having the tag.  The person's selection can only be either:  consistent with the nature of the content being exchanged - in which case it adds nothing over what we know from the nature of the content -- or, it can be inconsistent - in which case, we've now introduced a factual dispute into the transaction which has to go to a jury.  Moreover, if not associated to specific elements of the payload (which could go down to words or clauses in a document) rather than a single flag for the entire payload then it introduces confusion over which pieces of the payload are covered and which are not.

Thanks,
Kelly D. Ray
Director
Advisory Services
PricewaterhouseCoopers

(home office) 972-881-2420
(voicemail/fax) 214-853-4264
(cell) 972-896-5834
kelly.ray@us.pwc.com

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

09/09/2004 05:32 PM

To	Kelly D Ray/US/ABAS/PwC@Americas-US
cc
Subject	Re: Ray 9/9/2004: ebBP Work Item Session 10 Sept

kelly.ray@us.pwc.com wrote:

>
> I very much would like to participate in this.  However, I'm
> double-booked now between an internal meeting and attending a session
> at the National Association of Legislative IT staff where we are
> trying to get input and guidance for work we are doing in the
> LegalXML-Legislative group.
>
> Any way this particular work item can be moved to a meeting next week?
>  I really want to get better up to speed, particularly since we have
> begun work on a subscription information exchange transaction standard
> as part of LegalXML-Legislative and want to see what we can leverage
> from ebXML work.
>
mm1: I don't know if we will resolve tomorrow so I am sure you will have
'your day in court.' Stay tuned for notes and you can add your 'two-cents.'



_________________________________________________________________
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. --- End Message ---