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

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

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

> 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

I thought CPPs and CPAs would be used to indicated that a party would play more than one role in a collaboration. Yes? No?  The BPSS just says here's the model of the collaboration.

Note that in a pre-release version of the CPA SN model, I had just one transaction -- the offer.  In this model, the collaboration has two business transaction activities, CPA Offer BTA and CPA Counter Offer BTA.  These two business transaction activities would then reference to the same business transaction definition.  I also tried to use the same authorized role ("CPA Negotiator" and not "CPA Negotiator A" and "CPA Negotiator B").  As you might see, this make a certain amount of sense.  Personally, I would like the roles to be identical and then via the CPP/CPA you would like to be able to specify, for example, that party X plays the CPA Negotiator role for the "Process CPA Offer" responding business activity in the "Offer CPA" business transaction of the "CPA Simple Negotiation" business collaboration.  Likewise, party X could specify that it also plays the CPA Negotiator role for the "Offer CPA" requesting business activity in the "Offer CPA" business transaction.  (There is a parallel between the security domain's role-privilege model and business transaction authorized roles and requesting/responding business activities).  In any case, I did not have the time to determine if the BPSS or UMM semantics would support the single business transaction model.

Brian