[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] FW: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model v0.06
FYI
*************************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************************
----- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 03/13/2002 06:11 PM -----
Arvola Chan
<arvola@tibco.com To: "Ebxml-Cppa@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Ebtwg-Bps@Lists.
> Ebtwg. Org" <ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org>
cc:
03/13/2002 05:59 Subject: FW: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model v0.06
PM
I am not able to post to the ebxml-cppa-negot alias because I have not
subscibed to the elist. I am reposting this to the ebxml-cppa alias to try
to get some clarification.
Also, in the CPA Simple Negotiation model, how would you indicate in the
BinaryCollaboration element that a party may play more than one role, i.e.,
both as the initiator and the responder for the "Counter Offer CPA BTA"
business transaction activity (see attached message)?
Thanks,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 3:36 PM
To: Hayes, Brian; ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model v0.06
Brian:
The CPPA Simple Negotiation is between two parties. Why is it necessary to
include a MultiPartyCollaboration element in
CollaborationProtocolAgreementSimpleNegotiation$0.06.xml?
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Hayes, Brian [mailto:Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:11 AM
To: ebtwg-bcp@lists.ebtwg.org; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
Subject: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model v0.06
The follwing e-mail has been posted to
ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org. I believe this to be a
quality example of a modeling effort. Comments are welcomed,
however, please consider where to route you comments. General
discussion of the the model and CPPA Negotiation issues should
probably be sent to ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org.
---
The "Collaboration Protocol Agreement Simple Negotiation Business
Process Model", version 0.06, work-in-progress, is available at
http://brianhayes.home.attbi.com/TR/index.html#CPPA
4.1 Summary
This model specifies a simple business process for negotiating
Collaboration Protocol Agreements. The model is based on the
Simple Contract Formation Pattern as specified in ebXML
E-Commerce Patterns [bpPATT]. Further text TBD.
This model was developed in accordance to the methodology
(process, meta-model, and notation) and patterns as set forth
in the following specifications and technical reports: Business
Process and Business Information Analysis Overview [bpOVER],
ebXML Business Process Analysis Worksheets and Guidelines
[bpWS], ebXML E-Commerce Patterns [bpPATT], and the UN/CEFACT
Modeling Methodology [UMM].
The following types of files related to this model are
available at http://brianhayes.home.attbi.com/TR/: BPSS XML
Instance, web page version of UML model, and the Microsoft Word
version of this text.
Model, v 0.06, Post-script
I did not have the time to do on-line research on negotiation
prior to "publishing" version 0.06. However, here's some sites that
might be worth investigation for terminology, process etc. For
example, standard names for the authorized roles and other terms such
as B.A.T.N.A. may be found in these resources:
UCLA Office of Contract and Grant Administration.
http://www.research.ucla.edu/sr2/gloss.htm
DLA Commercial Activities (A-76) Competition Guidebook.
http://www.dla.mil/J-8/A-76/DLSCA-76Guidebook.html
Formal Conversations for the Contract Net Protocol.
www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~robertof/publications/acai01/acai2001Flores&Kremer.pdf
Google.com searches for negotiation, offer, proposal, role,
etc.
Sincerely,
Brian Hayes
Commerce One Labs
----- Message from "Hayes, Brian" <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com> on
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:51:32 -0800 -----
To: "Arvola Chan" <arvola@tibco.com>
cc: "Mwang@Tibco. Com" <mwang@tibco.com>
Subject: RE: CPPA Simple Negotiation Model
v0.06
See below. You may want to post your question to the
ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org and see if you get a different answer. Good
people to get comments from are JimClark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>; John Yunker
john.yunker@bleuciel.org; Antoine Lonjon ALonjon@MEGA.com; so, you may want
to email them directly.
Also, pardon any long winded answers -- I'll be referencing specifications
to make things clearer for myself.
1. [Arvola] I still don't have a good grasp of the relationship between
the InitiatingRole and RespondingRole elements (under BinaryCollaboration)
and the fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole attributes (undefr
BusinessTransactionActivity). Do their names have to match? Within one
BinaryCollaboration, doesn't each party plays exactly one role?
[Brian] In my interpretation of the UMM Metamodel, the answer is yes,
the names must match. I don't think the UMM Metamodel elaborates on the
mapping of the role on the PartnerType to BusinessCollaboration association
(in the Business Requirements View (BRV), UMM Metamodel figure
BRV-Semantics) to the AuthorizedRole class (in the Business Transaction
View(BTV)). In the UMM Metamodel, AuthorizedRole performs a BusinessAction
(RequestingBusinessActivity or RespondingBusinessActivity). Now, the UMM
could be missing some documentation that states that there is mapping from
the role names used in the BRV to the BTV AuthorizedRoles and that the
names do not need to be the same. I think the UMM may also be missing
documentation that discusses the mapping of AuthorizedRoles in nested
collaborations.
BTW, the UMM Metamodel is important here because the BPSS is defined as a
semantic subset of the UMM Metamodel AND the worksheets are based on the
the UMM Metamodel and not the BPSS.
1.1. [Arvola] Within one BinaryCollaboration, doesn't each party plays
exactly one role?
[Brian] Rather than answer this directly, here's my interpretation of
the bpBPSS: Each party plays exactly one set of roles in a binary
collaboration (including any nested binary collaborations): The [ebBPSS,
1.0.1, sectio 6.4.2.1] states "A Binary Collaboration is always between two
roles." A Binary Collaboration can reference another (a sub collaboration)
Binary Collaboration via the CollaborationActivity element. This
referenced sub Binary Collaboration can have two roles that are different
than the roles in the containing Binary Collaboration. The initiation
roles map to each other and the responding roles map to each other.
To understand this problem better, one needs to understand the semantics
behind these elements which is deeper than the names of the elements.
Sometimes the apparent differences between the BPSS and the UMM Metamodel
confuses me; thus, it takes a bit of time to clear things up -- more time
than I have today.
2. [Arvola] Is there a problem with the following definition in
CollaborationProtocolAgreementSimpleNegotiation$0.06.xml:
<BusinessTransactionActivity name="Counter Offer CPA BTA" nameId="
CounterOfferCPABTA" businessTransaction="Counter Offer CPA"
businessTransactionIDRef="btid:CounterOfferCPA$0.06"
fromAuthorizedRole="CPA Negotiator B" toAuthorizedRole="CPA
Negotiator A" isConcurrent="false" isLegallyBinding="true"
timeToPeform="P99D88H77M" />
</BinaryCollaboration>
How can the BinaryCollaboration allow for the possibility of either
"CPA Negotiator A" or "CPA Negotiator B" initiating the "Counter
Offer CPA BTA" BusinessTransactionActivity?
[Brian] Within the context of the BusinessTransactionActivity element
itself, the information is accurate. Via the CPA the two parties sign up
for the roles they want to play. Now, within the context of the
BinaryCollaboration element, it appears there lies the confusion. As you
have seen, the BinaryCollaboration defines
<InitiatingRole name="CPA Negotiator A" nameID="CPANegotiatorA" />
<RespondingRole name="CPA Negotiator B" nameID="CPANegotiatorB" />
In the UMM Metamodel, the BusinessCollaborationProtocol activity
model/graph does not have roles associated with it. It does have
BusinessPartner class which in turn references roles in
BusinessTransactions. The BPSS has a BusinessPartnerRole element; but, it
is in the MultipartyCollaboration.
I am thinking that the InitiatingRole and RespondingRole elements have no
meaning to the BusinessTransactionActivity element other than to define the
possible set of roles for the BinaryCollaboration (e.g. interpret them as
Role1 and Role2).
BTW, you've helped spot another error in the BPSS instance. I believe the
Transition fromBusinessState and toBusinessState attributes should
reference BusinessTransactionActivities (or CollaborationActivities) and
not BusinessTransactions.
/Brian
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC