[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: Dubray 8/19/2004: isIntelligibleCheckRequired
Anders W. Tell wrote: > Monica J. Martin wrote: > >> >>> Serm: May I ask a novice question. Why does BPSS need this >>> attribute? Can't it >>> just be specified in the signal that the message is not readable. >> >> > > Interesting comment,observation. This is how the Std Business > Acknowledge principles are constructed. The exact specifications of > what each specific type of Acknowledge says/means are communicated > through elaboration of a single Signal/Ack message. > > Surprisingly enough it seems as if it is possible to fold many (dare I > say most;) signals/acks into one construct, ebMS, Ack, BPSS, > ReceiptAc, BPSS, AcceptanceAck, Exception, Ws-Reliability Ack, papiNet > Business Ack, CONTROL, APERAK etc all seem to fit. Since the signal is > explicit one can also handle some variations and increasing degrees of > legibilities established in different legal jurisdiction and by > industry organizations. > > Ive run the idea by a few industry groups such as ICC, SFTI and GEA > with positive response. More on SBA later this autoum. > > thanks > /anders mm1: This blurs the separation between the messaging and process areas. Is this work being conducted outside of those groups? If so, please explain why? Thank you.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]