[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: FW: Business Transaction Control Parameters
I'm forwarding my comment related to the "timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance" to the BP group's consideration per Karsten's suggestion. Larissa Leybovich Vitria Technology Supply Chain Solutions Irvine 949-857-4233 Cell 949-836-2545 Sunnyvale 408-212-2716 -----Original Message----- From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 5:38 PM To: Larissa Leybovich Subject: RE: Business Transaction Control Parameters Larissa, my apologies, I never saw your previous e-mail. I wasn't online during the holiday week-end, and must have overlooked it as I was looking through my mail yesterday. That is a very interesting comment. Please send it to the whole BP team. thanks, * karsten >Karsten, >Did you have a chance to review my comments? Should I forward these to the >whole BP team? > >Larissa Leybovich >Vitria Technology >Supply Chain Solutions >Irvine 949-857-4233 >Cell 949-836-2545 >Sunnyvale 408-212-2716 > > -----Original Message----- >From: Larissa Leybovich >Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 7:40 PM >To: 'Karsten Riemer' >Subject: RE: Business Transaction Control Parameters > >Hello Karsten, > >I'd just started to monitor the ebXML correspondence of the BP team. >Having worked with the RosettaNet team since 09-1999 as a modeler/business >analyst, I became familiar with the RosettaNet Business Process meta-model. >I would like to inquire about one specific parameter and a business >transaction design pattern from your document. > >RosettaNet (RN) had defined a concept of Non-Substantive acceptance which >was measured via the timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance since very early days. As >modelers at the RosettaNet workshops we were continuously educating RN >supply chain partners about this parameter and it's applicability as a >performance control constrain. Every time we had a >BusinesssTransactionActivity design pattern, we'd ask if there is a business >requirement to have a Non-Substantive acceptance before you get back a >Substantive acceptance via the responding business document. For every >single PIP the response was "NO". As a result NONE of RN PIPs have a >requirement for the Non-Substantive acceptance and it turned out that the >"acknowledgement of acceptance" concept was found to be a non practical and >non-valuable parameter by the RN membership. As a result, beginning with >the RNIF v.2.0, the "acknowledgement of acceptance" was removed as a >business requirement and a corresponding performance control parameter. >Here is what RNIF v.2.0 is stating: > >" 1.2.2.1 Action and Signal Messages >Note: In RNIF 2.0, RosettaNet eliminated the Acceptance Acknowledgement >Signal, which had not been used in any of the PIPs." > >B.5 Acceptance Acknowledgement > >RNIF 2.0 no longer supports the use of the Acceptance Acknowledgement >concept for non-substantive acknowledgements of initial business actions. >The Time to Acknowledge Acceptance attribute in the Business Activity >Performance Controls table in the Business Operation View and the Time to >Acknowledge Acceptance Signal in the Functional Service View therefore >should be omitted for newly designed PIPs." > >From what I understand the Acceptance Acknowledgement is the major factor >that differentiates BusinessTransactionActivity from the RequestConfirm >design pattern. >If this is true, than my questions to the BP group are: > >1. Did ebXML BP team look at the RN conclusions related to the "Acceptance >Acknowledgement" parameter's history, usage, and applicability? >2. If there is the true necessity to have this parameter, which data >elements have to be validated/accepted? What is being returned in the >"non-Substantive" signal to the initiating partner role? >3. What is the major differentiation between the BusinessTransactionActivity >from the RequestConfirm design patterns? >4. What are the business requirements to have these 2 different design >patterns? Which the business scenarios are supported by each design >pattern? How do you determine when to use one design pattern vs. the other? > >I'm sending this message to you only initially, because I don't know if >these questions had been raised and answered already by the BP group. If >it is a closed item, then I don't want to waste the whole group's time on >this subject (in light of your tight deadlines). > >Best regards, > >Larissa Leybovich > >Vitria Technology >Supply Chain Solutions >Irvine 949-857-4233 >Cell 949-836-2545 >Sunnyvale 408-212-2716 > > -----Original Message----- >From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM] >Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:02 PM >To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-=tp@lists.ebxml.org >Subject: Business Transaction Control Parameters > > << File: Word.Document.8 >> Hi, >the TP team had asked for clarification of the control parameters on a >business transaction (formerly known as commercial transaction), >specifically >the security related ones. > >Attached is a write-up that I think is clear, but unfortunately I am not >sure >if it is correct in every little detail :-( > >It has some open questions, that I think we can use to resolve the concerns >about what level the 'business' needs to specify security at. I am referring >to Ralph Berwanger's recent mail to MaryAnn Hondo. > >We are in extreme time pressure, so we can only entertain feedback during >Friday the 22nd. Anything after that may go into a next review cycle. > >-karsten
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC