RE: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

David, see responses inline:

> What I'm thinking is the ability to define a "Fail" action.  A single
> "Fail" action could
> be associated with TRP header, which then details the item, as above, that
> caused
> the fail.
>
> For a given transaction (OK that should be communicationID?) the BP folks
> can
> define what FAIL entails from the business process side.  On the EDI side
> we had
> this hideously overloaded 997 - we want to avoid that!
>
> Notice "fail" in the BP context could be an "out-of-stock" or a
> "rain-check" response,
> as well as an "error" or "not processable" type response.

I beleive your solution would work if we defined a strict classification
system for these "Failures". Each "Fail" message would be accompanied by a
"classification", perhaps what David Burdett is suggesting in his error spec
would fit the bill.

> Once again we also have a minimalist approach - if you are at Level 1,
> you have full access to BP, RegRep and responsive behaviours, thru
> down to level 6 where you have a simple static RegRep emulation, that
> only has one builtin default "fail" behaviour for transport or payload
> handling.
>

This sounds like a flexible quality of service capability (lets everyone
choose the QoS they need), I think this is good.


Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions