[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Re: [Fwd: Negotiation Business Process Implementation]
>Mailing-List: contact ebxml-cppa-negot-help@lists.oasis-open.org; run by ezmlm >X-No-Archive: yes >List-Post: <mailto:ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org> >List-Help: <mailto:ebxml-cppa-negot-help@lists.oasis-open.org> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ebxml-cppa-negot-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:ebxml-cppa-negot-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org> >Delivered-To: mailing list ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=8.0 >Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 16:00:41 -0700 >From: "Himagiri (Hima) Mukkamala" <himagiri@sybase.com> >Organization: Sybase, Inc. >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) >X-Accept-Language: en >To: Sacha Schlegel <schlegel@cs.curtin.edu.au> >CC: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>, > ebxml-cppa-negot <ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org> >Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Re: [Fwd: Negotiation Business Process >Implementation] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2003 23:00:59.0221 (UTC) >FILETIME=[00D64050:01C3256D] > ><hima> inline. > > > > > > > From: Sacha Schlegel <schlegel@cs.curtin.edu.au> > > > > To: ebxml-cppa-negot-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > Cc: schlegel@cs.curtin.edu.au > > > > Subject: Negotiation Business Process Implementation > > > > Date: 21 May 2003 01:39:23 +0800 > > > > > > > > Hi ebXML CPPA-Negotiation team > > > > > > > > For project at Curtin University, Perth, Australia I have implemented a > > > > very basic non-compliant Business Service Interface (BSI) which "tries" > > > > to implement the Negotiation Business Process Specification (NBPS) > > > > instance XML file (uuid="bpid:ebXML:CPPA-Negotiation", > > > > version=."R02.00">. > > > > > > > > Have difficulties with the NBPS. > > > > > > > > From my understanding (also from reading the Automated Negotiation of > > > > Collaboration Protocol Agreements Specificiation Version 0.04) a valid > > > > negotiation can be the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > A -------------offer--------------> B > > > > A <----counter pending offer------- B (after 1st BC finished) > > > > A <---------counter offer---------- B (begin 2nd BC) > > > > A -----counter pending offer------> B > > > > A ----------counter offer---------> B > > > > A <---------accept----------------- B > > > > A --------final response----------> B (after 2nd BC finished) > > > > > > > > Legend: > > > > > > > > A Party A > > > > B Party B > > > > BC Binary Collaboration > > > > > > > > Assumption: There is allways a "counter pending offer" followed by a > > > > "counter offer" in the BinaryCollaboration "CPA Negotiation Counter > > > > Offer BC". > > > > > ><hima> I'm not sure if you are looking at the latest version of the NBPS >document. Latest version has a "Final BT" which involves sending >the final CPA by the party accepting the earlier offer and the party >that made the final offer responds to the final CPA. > >I've only used the preConditions and postCOnditions to convey the role change >in textual format given that current version of the bpss doess not let >users represent machine readable "conditional logic". But the role >reversal is conveyed in an automated fashion by using two different >BTAs for the same business transaction. Essentially, there are two >different BTAs for "Counter Offer -> counter offer pending" process. > > >(Roles for the counter offer BC) >Counter offer Init Role <---------> Counter Offer Respond Role > > >Counter Offer ---------> (1) > <--------- Counter Offer Pending (2) > > > <--------- Counter > Offer (3) >Counter Offer Pending ----------> (4) > > >Counter >Offer ---------> (5) > <--------- Accept > Offer (6) > > > <--------- Final > CPA (7) > >Final CPA Response ----------> (8) > > > >1 &2 correspond to Counter offer BT but is initiated by role >"Counter Offer Initiator". 3 & 4 correspond to "Counter Offer BT" >but is initated by role "Counter Offer Responder". Hence it's the >same BT but performed by using different BTAs. There are transitions >from steps 2 to 3 if there was a counter offer pending response. >Similarty there is a transition from 6 to 7 which is the final BT that >I mentioned earlier. Steps 7 & 8 belong to "Final BT" but there >are two different BTAs for the same transaction depending on which >role send the acceptance. So if step 4 was "Accept" instead of "COP" >then "Final BT" would have been initiated by "Counter offer Intiator". > >These steps are part of "Counter offer Collaboration" described in >the NBPS. Negotiation process would come to this process only >if the first offer from "Negotiation Initiator" was responded to >by "Negotiation Responder" with a "Counter Pending OFfer". >One thing I do seem might be a problem is associating the fact >that "Negotiation Responder" is the same as >"Negotiation Counter Offer Initiator". What I should probably do >is name the roles in the Collaboratoin Activity using "Negotiation Iniator" >and "Negotiation Responder". This way it will be clear that >"Negotiation Initiator" will correspond to initiatin role in >"Counter Offer Collaboration" i.e. "Counter Offer Initiator Role" > >Hope this helps. Please feel free to continue this >discussion. > >Thanks >hima > > > > > > > > Studying the NBPS I dont get to the above assumption. Assuming that the > > > > "postCondition" in the BusinessTransactionActivity "CPA Counter Offer 2 > > > > BTA" and "CPA Counter Offer 1 BTA" indicates the "reversion". BTW the > > > > value of "postCondition" which is "Parties reverse roles they play" > > > > cannot be interpreted by a common BSI IMHO. > > > > > > > > The error I see is that the parties revers roles ONLY if one party > > > > responds to a counter offer with "counter pending offer" but not > with an > > > > accept or reject doc. That is not clear from the NBPS > > > > > > > > Kind regards. > > > > > > > > Sacha Schlegel > > > > > > > > PS: Next step is to provide a user interface (sort of backend) to the > > > > BSI to set the content of the offer and counter offer documents to > > > > negotiate over a draft CPA and its NDD. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > Sacha Schlegel > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > 4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth, Australia > > > > sacha@schlegel.li www.schlegel.li > > > > public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > >-- > > >------------------------------------------------ > > >Sacha Schlegel > > >------------------------------------------------ > > >4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth, Australia > > >sacha@schlegel.li www.schlegel.li > > >public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg > > >------------------------------------------------ > > > > ************************************* > > Martin Sachs > > standards architect > > Cyclone Commerce > > msachs@cyclonecommerce.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > signature1.ascName: signature1.asc > > Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > >You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa-negot/members/leave_workgroup.php ************************************* Martin Sachs standards architect Cyclone Commerce msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]