MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications
From: Mark Leitch <>
To: Tim McGrath <>,<>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:18:37 +0100
Title: Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications
I agree with Jon and Tim on this. The only ‘blind’ transaction I think is valid is the open request for quotation where the Customer issues an RFQ that any supplier can respond to. But that is not an interchange, it’s simple a posting to a portal which demands a response in a particular format; thereafter, the formalised interchange takes place. ‘Blind interchange’ is not a requirement.
Regards, M
Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
tel.: +44 1932 821112
cell.: +44 7881 822999
mail:
skype: wmarkle
site: www.tritorr.com
> From: Tim McGrath <>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:29:08 +0800
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello UBL TC,
>> The second thing I'd like to say is that I personally believe the
>> notion of blind interchange to be unrealistic. I simply cannot
>> imagine a real-world business accepting either a purchase order or
>> an invoice without some prior out-of-band agreement (even if it's
>> only a handshake or a phone conversation). Common B2C portals
>> like amazon.com are not examples of blind interchange, because
>> they enforce the input format through generation of the portal
>> input forms, and they rely upon payment agreements that are far
>> from ad hoc. If anyone can think of a real-world example of the
>> unconstrained blind interchange of a legally binding business
>> document, I'd like to hear it. This seems somehow to have become
>> a requirement, but I'm not sure whose it is.
>>
>>
> i agree this is not a requirement for UBL, although it did get some
> mileage in ebXML days. i also think we don't want this requirement to
> creep into UBL.
>
> what we have to remind ourselves is that new technology does not affect
> the principles of business. the more important requirement is for formal
> trading relationships to be made more efficient and interoperable with
> others.
>
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228
> postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications
From: "G. Ken Holman" <>
References:
Re: [ubl] Re: Namespace URI string implications
From: Tim McGrath <>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
