[Fwd: questions on UMM parameters (Fwd)]

[Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>]

Please see attached.

I forgot to forward to list.

Jim

---

• From: Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>
• To: Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
• Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:18:37 -0600

Please see my responses

Karsten Riemer wrote:

> Thanks,
> I will be sending out the spec schema for team review tomorrow, and show all
> the attributes as I had suggested, but I will say that this is pending final
> alignment with UMM and possible UMM change. So if we all agree over the
> week-end we can get the agreed solution into the version we submit to QR on
> Monday.
>
> Again, my point is that we should chose one of the following:
>
> 1. Both activities can send receiptAcknowledgement. Responder acknowledges
> receipt of the request. Requestor acknowledges receipt of the response. In
> this case both requestingActivity and respondingActivity have
> timeToAcknowledgeReceipt and isIntelligibleCheckRequired and
> isNonRepudiationOfReceiptRequired.

In that the Business Transaction is defined from the requestor perspective and
the contract/commitment formation occurs at the receipt of the response, there is
no business requirement for the responder to save the returning reponse receipt
for the purpose of repudiation. For this reason,
isNonRepudiationOfReceiptRequired is defined for and has meaning only on the
requestor side.

>
>
> 2. Only the responding activity can send receiptAcknowledgement. In this case
> both only respondingActivity has timeToAcknowledgeReceipt and
> isIntelligibleCheckRequired and only requestingActivity
> isNonRepudiationOfReceiptRequired.

There is nothing in the UMM that precludes either role from sending a
receiptAcknowledgement, or any other signal for that matter. Each of the timing
or configuration elements, may or may not be useful based on the definition of
the business transaction being modeled.

The proper choice is #1 with isNonRepudiationOfReceiptRequired defined only on
the requestor side.


>
>
> And another, parallel issue. We should chose one of the following:
>
> 1. Both activities can send acceptanceAcknowledgement. Responder acknowledges
> acceptance of the request. Requestor acknowledges acceptance of the response.
> In this case both requestingActivity and respondingActivity have
> timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance
>
> 2. Only the responding activity can send receiptAcknowledgement. In this case
> both only respondingActivity has timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance
>

Currently, the UMM defined #1 to be true, however, the meaning for a requestor to
return an acceptanceAcknowledgement has no meaning. However, it poses some
inteteresting possibilities. (the good kind)

Respectfully,
Jim Clark
936.264.3366

>
> thanks for considering this,
> -karsten
>
> issue is pending,
> >On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:55:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time),
> >Karsten Riemer wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Klaus,
> >>thanks for giving up your Guinness for this discussion.
> >>I have never seen the attached diagram before, but it helps a lot.
> >
> ><BIG SNIP>
> >
> >Karsten,
> >
> >I just got back to my hotel, still no Guinness, and are getting
> >ready to back my stuff up in order to travel tomorrow for about 20
> >hours (door2door) to get home :-)
> >
> >I make a deal with you, let me read and think about your comments.
> >If Jim has a few as well please pass them on over the next 9
> >hours, that is the time I will check my email before I rush off.
> >
> >I will use my air time to come to a conclusion and if there are
> >changes send out a new diagram over the weekend.
> >
> >Klaus
> >
> >--
> >Klaus-Dieter Naujok                          ebXML & TMWG Chair
> >Netfish Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Technology Officer
> >
> >

begin:vcard 
n:Clark;James
tel;cell:936.524.4424
tel;work:936.264.3366
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:I.C.O.T.
adr:;;10987 Quinlan N Lake;Conroe;TX;77303;
version:2.1
email;internet:jdc-icot@lcc.net
title:Principal Consultant
fn:James Clark
end:vcard

---

begin:vcard 
n:Clark;James
tel;cell:936.524.4424
tel;work:936.264.3366
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:I.C.O.T.
adr:;;10987 Quinlan N Lake;Conroe;TX;77303;
version:2.1
email;internet:jdc-icot@lcc.net
title:Principal Consultant
fn:James Clark
end:vcard