[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline
Marty, Thank you for your comments. I've updated the draft based on your suggestions. I was borrowing terminologies from RosettaNet when I was using Transaction/Action. I've changed them to Binary Collaboration and Transaction, respectively. I did intent for the NegotiateProposedCPA to be sent by either Party during the negotiation process. But I didn't make the point as clear as you have stated. To illustrate this point, I added in a few simple pattern diagrams. Regarding NDD that accompany either a CPA or a CPA Template, I did include it in the InitiatingCPANegotiation. Is that what you were referring to? Maybe my notation is a bit confusing, I intended to use {} to indicate a substitute block (either a CPA or a CPA Template). Any element outside of {} are common/required for the initial message. Please let me know if I misunderstood your meaning. Cheers, Jean -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 8:23 PM To: Jean Zheng Cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline Jean, This is a great beginning. Of course, we will eventually have to reconcile the message content with the proposed business process definition. A few comments: I would call Negotiation a binary collaboration. What you are calling Actions are presumably the business transactions in the BPSS sense. I suggest that we use terminology consistent with BPSS. schemaLocation (NDD, CPA, CPA Template): We may need to specify schemaLocation to keep some parsers happy but the Schemata should not be something that can be customized. Our goal should be that all CPAs have the same schema (as is true today), all CPA Templates have the same Schema and all NDDs have the same Schema. We agreed that there would be an NDD with a CPA Template as well as with a CPP. NegotiateProposedCPA: As you have written the draft it seems that one party proposes a CPA and the other can issue NegotiateProposedCPA as a counterproposal. For now, let's assume that either party can issue this to the other party. For example: 1. Party A proposes a CPA to Party B 2. Party B sends NegotationProposedCPA with specific details. 3. Party A responds with NegotiateProposedCPA with details as a counter to Party B's proposed changes. 4. Iterate over 2 and 3 until agreement is reached. 5. One party sends the other an updated CPA. This is one place where we will need to reconcile the message definition with the proposed business process definition. Regards, Marty **************************************************************************** ********* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com **************************************************************************** ********* Jean Zheng <Jzheng@vitria.com> on 02/10/2002 09:05:34 PM To: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org cc: Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline Hello, Sorry I've missed our conference call. I've been buried in my day job. Finally I'm allowed to surface and breathe a few bubbles. :) Here is an outline of Message Content for CPA Negotiation Process. Hopefully it is enough to get our discussion started. I will revise this as we are moving forward... Since it is supposed to be just a list, I adopted a very strange syntax. I hope it is not too confusing. Any suggestions are welcome! <<NegotiationMessageContent.doc>> Cheers, Jean ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC