[ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model v0.06

["Hayes, Brian" <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>]

Title: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model v0.06

The CPPA Simple Negotiation is between two parties. Why is it necessary to include a MultiPartyCollaboration element in CollaborationProtocolAgreementSimpleNegotiation$0.06.xml?

The BPPS instance was generated using a prototype tool and I did not take the time to completely clean up the generated XML.

 

I believe after I changed some of the worksheet field names or semantics, I may have caused the problem ... or perhaps this bug has been there all along.  In any case, the un-official answer is that it is a feature to make up for the fact that the BPSS does not have a ConditionExpression on the BinaryCollaboration/Start element.

 

The generated MultipartyCollaboration is somewhat suspect anyways...

1.  Note use of pseudo-state keyword START, where elsewhere in the BPSS, the start pseudo state is an element.

- <Transition onInitiation="false" fromBusinessState="START" toBusinessState="Offer CPA">

        <ConditionalExpression expressionLanguage="urn:x-un:ebtwg:umm:expressionLanguage:businessEntityExpression" expression="CpaOffer.isPending" />

  </Transition>

2. The business partner roles seem to be taking on more that what is described in the model.  In the following snippet, CPA Negotiator A seems to be taking on more repsonsibility than he/she should... 

<BusinessPartnerRole name="CPA Negotiator A" nameID="CPANegotiatorA">

  <Performs initiatingRole="CPA Negotiator A" initiatingRoleIDRef="'//BinaryCollaboration[@name="CPA Simple Negotiation"]/InitiatingRole[@name="CPA Negotiator A"]'" />

  <Performs initiatingRole="CPA Negotiator B" initiatingRoleIDRef="'//BinaryCollaboration[@name="CPA Simple Negotiation"]/InitiatingRole[@name="CPA Negotiator B"]'" />

  <Performs respondingRole="CPA Negotiator B" respondingRoleIDRef="'//BinaryCollaboration[@name="CPA Simple Negotiation"]/RespondingRole[@name="CPA Negotiator B"]'" />  

 

   /Brian