[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: Counter Offer Suggestion 1: change ofsubject, change of NDD, counterproposal as "edit history"
Dale's rejoinders are more for me than for Bob, so I will respond.
"Dale: I do think that eventually some small tweaks
that in effect change the BPSS in play (beyond"
MWS: The team definitely agreed that changing the contents of the BPSS is
out of
scope for version 1. I will document the suggestion as you request.
"Dale: If reject-submit is how we have a
placeholder for putting a new NDD in play,
I hope we explicitly document this procedure"
MWS: I will document this point if I haven't already done so in the draft
spec.
"Dale: ...I don't think
that the other side's NDD for the same ProcessSpecification and
Role assignment would be a change of subject, just a change of approach
to the same subject!"
MWS: It is a change of direction. I believe that we have a consensus
that in version 1,
the only thing negotiable is what's in the offered NDD. Given that
the clock is rapidly approaching midnight (apologies to the Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists), I would prefer to document this as a suggestion
for the future.
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
*************************************************************************************
Dale Moberg
<dmoberg@cycloneco To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
mmerce.com> cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org, Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
Robert D Kearney/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
09/17/2002 01:17 Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: Counter Offer Suggestion 1: change of subject,
PM change of NDD, counterproposal as "edit history"
<DaleMoberg>
[snip]
First. CounterOffers occur after someone has initiated CPA Negotiation
by at least sending a negotiation message, a draft proposed CPA, and
a NDD proposed as governing the proposed CPA.
MWS: I agree.
Second. A CounterOffer should not constitute a wholesale change of
subject (refer to a different business process specification or
change the roles of the participants.
MWS: I agree. The spec. has to make this clear.
Dale: I do think that eventually some small tweaks
that in effect change the BPSS in play (beyond
than the BusinessProcessCharacteristics attributes)
might be part of Negotiation. Possibly a participant
might want to replace "PO -> PO Confirm -->
AdvanceShipN --> Invoice --> PaymentAuth"
by something like
"PO -> AdvanceShipNotice --> PaymentAuth"
This has been done by some businesses
to reduce message traffic (so the AdvanceShipNotice that contains
the PO number contains an Invoicing function).
But I am willing to postpone all these
aspects of negotiation to later as long as we have
a placeholder for them...
Third, a distinctive factor of the counter offer was that it could use
the NDD of the countering party. I am uncertain whether we have decided
to allow it to include a distinct draft CPA from the countering party,
but we had discussed this at one point.
MWS: I don't think that we have really considered these points yet. I
have
been working on the assumption that the current consensus is that one
negotiation dialog works with the NDD and draft CPA (CPA Template)
offered
by the party submitting the initial offer. I suspect that allowing the
countering party to submit its own NDD and CPA Template with a counter
offer will add considerably complexity. Of course the countering party
can
do a complete reject and then submit its own initial offer starting a
new negotiation dialogue.
Dale: If reject-submit is how we have a
placeholder for putting a new NDD in play,
I hope we explicitly document this procedure
even if we don't devote a lot of discussion on it. We then
at least have a placeholder. Perhaps we can suggest this be done
when a firm reject occurs, but before configuration is left
entirely to humans.
MWS: It occurs to me that allowing the countering party to submit its
own
NDD and CPA template could violate Dale's rule (above): A CounterOffer
should not constitute a wholesale change of subject .
Dale: Wholesale change of subject would be switching roles in a process
or possibly shifting to an entirely new ProcessSpecification. Also,
see above as BPSS eventually negotiable (not by December!) I don't think
that the other side's NDD for the same ProcessSpecification and
Role assignment would be a change of subject, just a change of approach
to the same subject!
MWS: I have some text in the draft specification to the effect that if
a party that intends to make an offer has access to the other party's
NDD, it might wish to build a new NDD that covers what is negotiable
in the two original NDDs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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