messages vs. signals

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>]

In the discussion BP/TP today it became clear to me that there is some open
questions about what is a BusinessActionMessage and what is a
BusinessSignalMessage. Questions were raised from several different angles:

One is if a AcceptanceAcknowledgement and a ReceiptAcknowledgement are both
intended to support the BUSINESS, why are they called signals, not
BusinessMessages?  (I actually believe signal is the right word, since that is
commonly used in supply chain parlance).

The other is that these signal messages need to be treated like 'first class'
transport messages and that we need to find places to specify whether they
need to be secure, reliable, repudiated, etc.

The third is that 'isIntelligibleCheckRequired' is probably a bad name if what
we really mean is IconfirmThatYourRequestIsValidAndPassesMyBusinessRules. (how
long is a string? :-)

I fully recognize that we are building on top of RosettaNet definitions and
patterns here, but this might be the time to improve the clarity of those
going forward. I will discuss this with the RosettaNet architects in my next
meeting with them.

In the meantime I will add this as an open issue against the specification
schema.

thanks,
-karsten