RE: BPSS strategic issue: transaction integrity

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

David Connelly wrote:
>I encourage that the BPSS support flexibility as we have found
>many customers who are not willing to accept a "standard"
>process defined by someone else.  By what we can tell, the
>ebXML BPSS is flexible and therefore we and our constituency are
>happy with it.

David,

Could you spell out a little more about what you mean in terms
of the transaction integrity discussion?  Although I think the BPSS
has some fixable holes (which I tried to list), it is still based on
the same general kind of transaction model as RosettaNet PIPs.

But that does not mean you don't still have several transaction
patterns to play with and lots of flexibility beyond that.  Where
would you draw your your "enough flexibility" line?  What kind
of "standard" would be unacceptable to OAG?  What are you
trying to caution us about?

Thanks,
Bob Haugen

P.S. I would really like to see OAG adopt ebXML business
processes.