ebXML tied to legal domain

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

> 2.) The goal is to make ebXML specifications true de jure
> international standards. UN/CEFACT is committed to do so. ...

Klaus, as Chairman of the ebXML consortium, are you saying that
a business that picks up and uses ebXML Business Processes, TPAs,
etc. will find within them, terminology which is converged with
international law?  Do they also synchronize with commercial law
in any particular country?

This is a new topic to me; briefly, are there ongoing legal reviews
in place for ebXML drafts or is this going to be based on
pre-existing work done under UN/CEFACT?  What is the nature of
that?   Can you give me a few links to read?

Respectfully,
TOdd Boyle CPA  Kirkland WA


-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:knaujok@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 2:15 PM
To: Murray Maloney
Cc: ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Parties and Partners

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:56:46 -0400, Murray Maloney wrote:
>At 01:22 PM 10/18/00 -0700, Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:42:29 -0400, Murray Maloney wrote:
>>
>>Let me say that my view point is based on the terminology of UN/CEFACT
>>and its legal rapporteurs work in regard to a TPA for eBusiness. I
>>plan to check with them on this issue, but having seen their work on a
>>model tpa I see no difference in what our work is and creating new
>>terms for new terms sake only is a bad. We are already confusing our
>>audience with more new terms than they care to learn.
>
>Klaus, I'm not sure what this means to the discussion.

Murray,

I tried to make two point:

1.) Don't invent terminology that is different from one use by
customers you are trying to sell which requires then to buy a book to
explain what the hell you talking about.

2.) The goal is to make ebXML specifications true de jure
international standards. UN/CEFACT is committed to do so. Therefore
its terminology will be in the end the one used, especially if there
is any hint of legal connection.

Regards,

Klaus


-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Maloney [mailto:murray@muzmo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:42 AM
To: ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok '
Subject: RE: Parties and Partners


I reduced the Cc list. If someone not on this list
should have received it, please forward it.
Klaus, let us know if you want off this thread yet.

At 01:21 PM 10/18/00 -0400, David RR Webber wrote:
>Message text written by Murray Maloney
>>Party			Any participant in market(s)
>>Partner			Parties engaged in formal agreement
>>Trading Partners	Partners conducting transactions in market(s)
>>

>I like this a lot.  I modified the trading partner slightly to remove
>the dependence on markets - it should be more open ended
>(but business related).
>
>Party           Any participant in market(s)
>Partner         Parties engaged in formal agreement
>Trading Partners        Partners conducting business transactions.

David,

'Market' is a precondition to 'business'. And more 'open-ended.'

Mentioning 'Market' creates the context for business. After all,
we are engaged in 'Creating a Single Global Electronic Market' in
which the 'Participants' engage in 'Business Transactions' between
'Parties', among whom there exist 'Partners' with business agreements,
which may someday coalesce into 'Coalitions', 'Buying Clubs', and 'Cartels'.

As described here, being a 'Party' is a precondition to engaging in
business on this system. That's how it works in most jurisdictions.

And we could make it even clearer if we eliminated 'Trading Partner'
and replaced it with 'Trader'. That is, 'Parties' includes everyone,
'Parters' includes 'Parties' with agreements, and 'Traders' includes
'Parties' (including 'Partners') who are transacting business.

>
>This also makes it clear that in the TA document
>we were indeed talking about Trading Partners, but that we failed
>to necessarily include Party - any participant in market.

The 'Single Global Electronic Market' must allow any legal entity,
by merely registering in one or more market, to participate in
the global market. This more 'open-ended' notion of 'Party' must,
in my opinion, be a part of the ebXML Architecture. Retrofitting
will be much too expensive, in time and intellectual effort. Getting
it right now is so much easier, and inexpensive.

Feedback requested.

Regards,
Murray