Re: [ebxml-bp] Work so far on UBL 1.0 (and SBS) definitions

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

>green: Greetings. As minuted, Sacha and I plan to work on
>the UBL/SBS definitions this weekend and I've started
>as much as I can on the basic presentation and
>editorial aspects, leaving the main content till that meeting. 
>The work I think we might try to concentrate on would 
>be the collaborations (my work is just to indicate these 
>broadly so far) and improving the parameters, etc. I'm 
>not sure whether there should be complexBTAs defined - 
>I'm hoping these can be omitted for simplicity and to 
>maximize genericity for reuse. (Includes of these definitions 
>could maybe be extended with complexBTA's, and further
>collaborations, etc). The comments I made earlier would
>apply to the needed improvements in the collaborations.
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200511/msg00066.html
>
>Please see attached what I've done so far. (Zip file with
>extension renamed to .zzz)
>
>All the best
>Steve
>
mm1: Stephen, will review this further today. On the ComplexBTA, it may 
be useful for circumstances where the DropShipVendor who is not visible 
to the Buyer (Ultimate Customer) and not part of this particular process 
definition (may be another modular definition between the Seller and the 
DropShipVendor). However, the Seller gains (and makes more effective 
decisions) by having Status Visibility to the actions of the 
DropShipVendor. This is actually still two-party Business Collaboration 
where the DropShipVendor is visible to the Seller but NOT a first-class 
entity/party.

For example, in the process diagram provided by Mr. Wilcox, the Notice 
to the Seller and/or ASN are sent by the DropShipVendor to the Seller.  
When the goods are shipped or the services performed they are done so on 
behalf of the Seller (i.e. the Ultimate Customer or Buyer is unaware of 
the DropShipVendor as one of the parties involved).  Whether or not this 
is the case in your example, is your decision though.

Thanks.