W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Business Protocol (was: Application Protocol Definition)

From: bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:30:56 -0600
To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <001a01c2df25$3ebaaac0$b8eafea9@PC1>

Comments interspersed.
Not trying to make this into yet another permathread,
but the distinctions I made have evidence behind them.
They are not arbitrary.

> > Here are some distinct things:
> > 1. Offer-Acceptance as a description
> > of the rules of contract formation.
> > 2. UNECE Recommendation 31, Electronic Commcerce Agreement
> > as a pretty neutral set of rules for doing offer-acceptance
> > electronically.
> > 3. RosettaNet PIP 3A4 as a document specifying
> > a particular set of messages and signals for executing
> > UNECE Recommendation 31.
> > 4. An ebXML BPSS script describing PIP A34 in XML
> > (which RosettaNet is actually developing).

> At least in my understanding #1 and #2 are equivalent, with #1 being
any
> Joe's description and #2 being a UNECE Recommendation, but they are
both at
> the same level.

#1 is not electronic.  It is the basic rules for offer-acceptance
as found in a commercial law book.
http://www.gldialtone.com/UCCformation.htm
#2 is a description of how to do #1 electronically.

> No #3 and no #4 seem to be at the same level.

#3 is a document.  It is not executable.
#4 is a script meant to be executed.

RosettaNet and UNCEFACT both know the difference very well.
RosettaNet already has #3, and is working on #4.

UNCEFACT has a UML version of #3 and
want to generate #4 from #3 using production rules.
They'll also generate RDF from #3.
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 07:32:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT