ebxml-cppa-comment message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-comment] About the final CPA problem?
- From: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>
- To: "Antonio" <antony65@mis.cycu.edu.tw>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:57:30 -0400
Hello, Antonio:
I have inserted some replies below, labelled MWS:
At 07:47 PM 7/13/2003 +0800, Antonio wrote:
Hello, Martin.
I am Antonio from Taiwan.
Do you still remember me ?
I have some problems about the "final CPA."
Could you help me to solve this?
Sorry...my English is not good ,but I try to explain the problems.
The problem is :
MWS: We need one more piece of information: Which Party will
send the initial offer to negotiate (send a CPA template and the combined
NDD)? For purposes of this discussion, I define that Party-A
composes the CPA template and combined NDD and sends them as the initial
offer.
If "First Party -
A" and "Second Party- B " want to negotiate
their CPPs and want to generate the common CPA.
And If we have CPP-A , NDD-A and CPP-B ,NDD-B (4 documents).
Step1:I assume the 4 documents'
structure is below:
CPP-A's elements are "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H"
NDD-A's elements are
"A,B,C,D"
CPP-B's elements are "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H"
NDD-B's elements are
"A,B,C,D,E,F"
So the
NDD Template (the intersection of NDD-A and
NDD-B) will be like
"A,B,C,D"
MWS: To a first approximation, this is correct. Party-A does
not agree to negotiate E and F, so Party-A does not include E and F in
the combined NDD. Please understand, however, that if Party-A's
values for elements E and F are not acceptable to Party-B, the
negotiation fails immediately. An alternative is that Party-A could
decide to negotiate on elements E and F since Party-B wants to
negotiate. In that case, Party-A includes E and F in the combined
NDD as well as A, B, C, and D.
MWS: Please note: The specification does not define the term
"NDD Template". Party-A offers an NDD to Party B in the
initial offer. Party-A MUST make use of Party-B's NDD in forming the NDD
for the initial offer if Party-B's NDD is available to Party-A. (This is
a change to what is in the current draft specification which I am
proposing to eliminate some inconsistencies in the draft.)
The NDD Template's values of elements(
"A,B,C,D") are
different.
Step2:If they generate the CPA
Template from CPP-A and CPP-B.
The CPA Template will be the "combination" from CPP-A and
CPP-B.
The structure of CPA Template is below:
MWS: Actually, Party-A generates the CPA Template since Party-A
will make the initial offer. See also below regarding the meaning of
values of elements in an NDD.
<CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
<Status>
.........
<PartyInfo>CPP-A
</PartyInfo>
<A> 1 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 3 </C>
<D> 4 </D>
<E> 5 </E>
<F> 6 </F>
<G> 7 </G>
<H> 8 </H>
<PartyInfo>CPP-B</PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 11 </B>
<C> 12 </C>
<D> 13 </D>
<E> 14 </E>
<F> 15 </F>
<G> 16 </G>
<H> 17 </H>
<Comment>
........
</CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
MWS: The CPA Template is correct.
Step3:If they use the method of
negotiation message to negotiate the NDD
Template.
MWS: The current specification does not define negotiating the NDD
combined NDD. Party-A prepares the combined NDD and sends it to Party-B
with the CPA Template. Party-A MUST consider Party-B's NDD if it is
available to Party-A as well as its own in constructing the initial offer
NDD. Party-A MUST NOT include anything that is not in Party-B's NDD since
absence from Party_B's NDD means that Party-B is not willing to negotiate
such items.
After negotiating,finally they both accept the
values("A,B,C,D") of NDD Template.
Therefore,The NDD Template's values of elements(
"A,B,C,D") could be the same or
different. ----------------- Right ot
Wrong???
MWS: As I discussed above, there is no negotiation of what is in
the NDD. Also, in general, the NDD contains names of elements and
attributes and the acceptable ranges of their values. A single
value in the NDD for an element or attribute means that it is not
negotiable. If an element or attribute is not negotiable, it is omitted
from the NDD and Party-A obtains its non-negotiable value from Party-B's
CPP and puts that value in the CPA Template.
And we will make the NDD Template's values to return to the CPA
Template's value.
In another word, the CPA Template's value will be replaced
with the NDD Template's values. -----------------
Right ot Wrong???
MWS: See may answer above. Non-negotiable values in the CPA
Template come from the CPPs, not from the NDDs.
If it is Right.
And I won't know what is the final CPA's
structure.------------------??
The below(maybe1 & maybe2) is my guess:
Maybe 1:The elements(E,F,G,H) are disappear.
I feel a little strange for situation.
MWS: G and H do not disappear. Their values come from the
CPPs if the CPPs contain consistent values. If the values in the
two CPPs are not consistent, the negotiation fails since the Parties do
not want to negotiate G and H (they are not in the NDDs). E and F
might be negotiable if (as I discussed above) Party A decides to
negotiate them since they are in Party B's NDD. If Party-A did not add E
and F to the NDD for the initial offer, they are not negotiable and the
negotiation fails if the two CPPs do not have consistent values for these
elements.
<CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
<Status>
.........
<PartyInfo>CPP-A
</PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 3 </C>
<D> 20 </D>
<PartyInfo>CPP-B</PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 12 </C>
<D> 13 </D>
<Comment>
........
</CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
Maybe 2:The elements(E,F,G,H) are still existence. but
why...................??
MWS: See my answer directly above.
<CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
<Status>
.........
<PartyInfo>CPP-A </PartyInfo>
<A> 10
</A>
<B> 2
</B>
<C> 3
</C>
<D> 20
</D>
<E> 5 </E>
<F> 6 </F>
<G> 7 </G>
<H> 8 </H>
<PartyInfo>CPP-B</PartyInfo>
<A> 10
</A>
<B> 2
</B>
<C> 12
</C>
<D> 13
</D>
<E> 14 </E>
<F> 15 </F>
<G> 16 </G>
<H> 17 </H>
<Comment>
........
</CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
Best Regards,
Antonio
P.S.
I am studying the "ebXML
Automated Negotiation of Collaboration Protocol
Agreements"
MWS: I am pleased that you are studying and building a prototype of
the system. Your query helped me to fix some inconsistencies in the NDD
rules.If your university is a member of OASIS, you are welcome to
contribute to our team by joining the CPPA team and negotiation subteam
and subscribing to ebXML-cppa-negotiation. If your university is not a
member of OASIS, you are welcome to continue asking questions and
contributing through ebxml-cppa-comment.
And I am building the
ACNP system
(Automated Collaboration and Negotiation Platform).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
徐瑞谷 (Antonio Hsu)
中原大學 資訊管理研究所
Institute of Information Management, CYCU
TEL:886-(0)3-2655418
Cell Phone:0937537955
Email:antony65@mis.cycu.edu.tw
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]