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

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

Monica's wording is precise and references an outside authority, which is a good thing.

I would support also including Dale's disclaimer: "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."

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:33 PM
To: Dale Moberg
Cc: ebXML BP; James Bryce Clark
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: [ebBP] 10/26/2004: "isLegallyBinding" Attribute Description



>Moberg: 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.
>  
>
mm1: See comment below.

>Moberg: 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.
>  
>
mm1: The text is taken directly from the document that was part of the 
initial package for the ebXML set of specifications (note that the 
authors are all laymen except for Jamie).  Telling people to talk to a 
lawyer is even more explicit and I am uncertain why we would even say 
this or draw attention to it. The key is what was written: the 
contractual framework and the parties taking responsibility are outside 
of the BPS description. Your point seems also to border on providing 
legal guidance or suggestion. Can you see anywhere in my description any 
prescription? It specifies the BSI mechanisms that support business 
confidence. Thanks.

>Moberg: 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).
>
mm1: How about this:

This attribute is an optional character that could represents a statement or commitment between trading partners, and their shared intent. Referencing the eCommerce Patterns v1.0, the digital signature cannot in and of itself infer intent [1].

This substantive and enforceable precondition exists on a Business Transaction Activity. The mechanisms in the BSI that provide the capability to support this precondition 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. 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.