Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: ebBP 2/22/2005: Any Protocol Failure Question:section 4.6.8.1 and 4.8.3

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

Dale Moberg wrote:

>No schema changes for that issue IMO. 
>
>It seems to me to be a matter or explaining (or illustrating) under what
>the conditions the status values would be true, what the point is in
>using one kind of failure in your descriptions rather than another, and
>so on. In other words, it is explanation of the meaning of the terms and
>illustration of their usage that might need more expansion. I personally
>think it is probably OK for 2.0; wait for further input from modelers or
>implementers.
>
>Dale Moberg
>
mm1: OK no schema changes required, other than maybe an annotation on 
General Exception Type which I can propose. The reason I asked about 
Failure is because it seems inconsistent with Success. Success is 
Business AND Technical Success. Failure is Business OR Technical 
Failure. Seemed inconsistent and overlapping to Business Failure and Any 
Protocol Failure (i.e. a Technical Failure). Note OR vs. AND. Thanks.