[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications
jon.bosak@sun.com wrote: >Hello UBL TC, >The second thing I'd like to say is that I personally believe the >notion of blind interchange to be unrealistic. I simply cannot >imagine a real-world business accepting either a purchase order or >an invoice without some prior out-of-band agreement (even if it's >only a handshake or a phone conversation). Common B2C portals >like amazon.com are not examples of blind interchange, because >they enforce the input format through generation of the portal >input forms, and they rely upon payment agreements that are far >from ad hoc. If anyone can think of a real-world example of the >unconstrained blind interchange of a legally binding business >document, I'd like to hear it. This seems somehow to have become >a requirement, but I'm not sure whose it is. > > i agree this is not a requirement for UBL, although it did get some mileage in ebXML days. i also think we don't want this requirement to creep into UBL. what we have to remind ourselves is that new technology does not affect the principles of business. the more important requirement is for formal trading relationships to be made more efficient and interoperable with others. -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]