RE: [ebxml-bp] RE: [ebBP] 10/26/2004: "isLegallyBinding" Attribute Description

["Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com>]

I like the direction of your suggested text Dale.

I would like to also include the list of other attributes that must be set in order for this attribute to mean anything at all, which includes at a minimum 1) authorization (they have authority), 2) authentication (they are who they say they are), 3) non-repudiation of origin and content (the document is verifiable as being exactly as provided by the authorized party).

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:18 PM
To: Monica J. Martin; ebXML BP
Cc: James Bryce Clark
Subject: [ebxml-bp] RE: [ebBP] 10/26/2004: "isLegallyBinding" Attribute Description


1. In keeping with the legacy style of attribute names, I would suggest "hasLegalIntent" as the attribute name.

2. How about this:

The optional attribute "hasLegalIntent" is used when business process designers desire to indicate that their business process description may be subject to contractual frameworks or agreements that are not included in the business process specification. 

For example, digital signatures used to implement nonrepudiation might have been agreed to be the way that nonrepudiation is implemented for a given business process.

Business process designers are encouraged to seek appropriate legal advice on whether they should or should not include this attribute in their business process descriptions. 

=======================================================

IMO, we should only be indicating that a mechanism exists, and that if designers wish to use this attribute in BPSS instances, they should confer with attorneys to discuss the value and significance of using the attribute.

As specification writers and non-lawyers, we cannot prescribe just what the legal significance of using this attribute is. Otherwise we are providing legal advice, which we are not trained to do (except maybe Jamie).





-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:03 PM
To: ebXML BP
Cc: James Bryce Clark; Dale Moberg
Subject: [ebBP] 10/26/2004: "isLegallyBinding" Attribute Description

In the editors' F2F 22 October and in our regular TC call yesterday, I 
indicated I would compile a draft paragraph to briefly describe the 
attribute that was named isLegallyBinding.

My draft proposal is to rename isLegallyBinding to HasLegalIntent. In 
addition, draft text below describes the mechanisms to be provided by 
the BSI. As indicated on the TC call, the responsibility is between the 
parties and agreements outside of the BSI (and BPSS). In the future, we 
(editors) recognize that contractual constraints in the form of metadata

may be required and will be defined.

========================================================================
===============================
This attribute is an optional character that represents a statement or 
commitment exchanged between trading partners, set by its sender, which 
indicates that the sender has expressed its intent to make the statement

legally enforceable. The digital signature cannot in and of itself infer

intent.

This substantive and enforceable precondition exists on a Business 
Transaction Activity. The mechanisms expected in the BSI that support 
the intent by and of the trading partners themselves are:
a. reliability
b. document security: confidential, tamper detectable and authenticated c. nonrepudiation d. authorization e. predictability

An offer must be resolved whether intentional or not (i.e. no agreement 
exists between the parties).
The contractual framework, agreements and their application to any 
artfiact are outside of this specification.

Reference eCommerce Patterns, v1.0, May 2001, 
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/bpPATT.pdf.
========================================================================
===============================