RE: Business Transaction Control Parameters

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

Karsten,
I really hate to bother you again, but I had a question about the
non-substantive acceptance concept and I was wondering if you could help me
understand it's concept better in relation to your work here ? Do I
understand that the idea of a non-substantive acceptance in RN is the same
as what you were discussing ?

Again sorry to distract you from your work.
All the very best (and a lot better NASDAQ) in 2001 !!
Dave,



> 
> Dave,
> 
> I agree with your message below, and urge you to send
> it to the public BP list so it can be considered as part of
> the official discussion on this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob Haugen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Welsh, David [SMTP:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, December 28, 2000 9:22 PM
> To:	'Larissa Leybovich'
> Cc:	Bob Haugen (E-mail); Brian Hayes (E-mail); James Clark (E-mail)
> Subject:	RE: Business Transaction Control Parameters
> 
> Larissa,
> I was wondering if you could help me understand the meaning of a
> "non-substantive acceptance". The name seems 'formal'.
> 
> Do I understand a 'non-substantive acceptance' to be 
> equivalent to the EDI
> world's X.12 equivalent of the 997 message or the UN/EDIFACT's CONTRL
> message; ie. both being 'empty messages' proving a signed receipt of
> acknowledgement that the sender and receiver have exchanged a 
> particular
> business document ?
> 
> Reason I ask is from a possible legal perspective :
> - within certain States in the US, it is legally admissable 
> to use a 997 as
> proof of delivery for things such as a vendor sending an invoice to a
> customer; and I've seen some company's insist on getting their 997's.
> - within Europe, specifically following the European Gov't 
> directives to the
> individual member Nations for the safe handling of movement 
> of dangerous
> goods (also being followed by the US Coast Guard and other 
> international
> bodies such as the International Maratime Organization), the use of an
> EDIFACT CONTRL message can usually happen for legal reasons 
> to prove that a
> customer or transport company has executed their legal 
> requirement to submit
> their dangerous goods manifest 24hrs before actual hazardous material
> movement. In practice it's typical that the gov't authority 
> doesn't give you
> an answer back, if at all, immediately after you send the 
> manifest in but
> you are legally obliged to report to the gov'ts ahead of time 
> or face the
> stiff consequences.
> 
> Do I understand your description of a 'non-substantive 
> acceptance' to be the
> same as the X12 997 or EDIFACT CONTRL messages ?
> 
> Thanks very much
> Dave Welsh
> Director e-Fulfillment 
> Nordstrom.com
> http://www.nordstrom.com
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larissa Leybovich [mailto:lleybovich@vitria.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 5:54 PM
> > To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> > 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
> > 
>