Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

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