- 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
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 UTC