Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Fwd: [ebxml-bp] WI-71 isLegallyBindingAttribute and Legal Intent

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

Kelly,
In the resonse we received from Legal XML group (Dr. Leff, Messing and 
you) and the continuing inputs from UNCEFACT UBAC, it appears that there 
is much more to be learned and understood about the intent and legal 
boundary/responsibility.  I think that reinforces what we described 
today, to more clearly state the attribute (name and use) [v2.0] and see 
more detailed changes in a subsequent version (v3.0). For v2.0, the team 
has discussed specifying 'intent' only (in a simple manner).  One 
interesting point you raised surrounded 'authority.' Dale Moberg has 
raised the question about how this relates to digital signatures and if 
the attribute is false. In this context, what does that mean (he has 
asked).  When you speak of 'HasAuthority,' does that touch on signatures?

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the Vermont meeting next week 
but could call in if a teleconference number was provided. Thank you.

Side note: It would also be beneficial if more discussions occurred 
between UBAC and LegalXML. Even though the focus is different, many 
goals are complementary.

> .....Ray: 1) "HasAuthority" - which could be determined based upon:
>         a) "title" of the person executing the transaction
>         b) "RepresentedAuthority" - person has assertd that he/she has 
> authority to bind the organization (perhaps through a certified 
> digital signature validated by the organization)