ebBP 10/11/2005: Logical Documents and UBL Inputs (addl detail fortoday)

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

In addition to inputs from UBL, see this additional comment from Stephen 
Green [1]. This provides some valuable insight in addition to comments 
made by Tim McGrath from UBL and from JJ Dubray. Talk to you at 9 a.m. 
Thanks.

[1] As a response to our focus and options on Specification element. 
See: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/email/archives/200510/msg00011.html.

>green: Monica
>
>Thanks for this. I think it would certainly be for both
>machine and human processing, firstly to help the
>finding of business (trading, etc) partners (if that is
>needed) with compatible ebBPs and CPPs, then
>(perhaps most importantly) to help in creating
>trading agreements and CPAs (having established
>a mutual agreement about what the business process
>and related documents should be - quite broadly but
>with sufficient granularity of detail, hence this request).
>Then I suppose, depending on the type of ebXML
>software, it could help with messages at that part 
>of runtime - that to me would be a secondary
>matter but perhaps more important to others with
>higher end systems to work with. I suppose machine
>processing is my primary consideration, complicated
>by my awareness that many might decide to resort to
>the human processing equivalent of this or may have 
>systems incapable of automating it completely.
>  
>
>[sent in summary on Monday, 10 Oct]......mm1: One important point (that I hoped to put out a summary today) was 
>the question - whether or not this is for machine processing or raising 
>to an analyst or expert in the process.  Dale and I spoke about your 
>questions late on Friday. What we surmised (and may help with input from 
>UBL) is:
>
>   1. Machine processing: May require a new attribute.
>   2. Human intervention: Existing attributes and an example could
>      perhaps be sufficient.
>
>If the desire is both, I think we would defer to 1.  The user feedback 
>is important in discussing this issue. I look forward to more details. 
>Thanks.
>  
>