[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: CPPA 9/18/2002: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Counter Offer SuggestionChanges Discussion
I agree with Monica. This is a Very Important matter. When we do discuss
changes to BPSS content, we will have to be very careful.
I would, however, like to observe that if two partners are negotiating the
BPSS content, they are presumably also still in the middle of negotiating
the TPA, so the real concern is that they keep the BPSS and TPA in sync.
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
*************************************************************************************
"Monica Martin"
<mmartin@certivo. To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, Martin W
net> Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: <ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org>, Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
09/18/2002 10:03 Robert D Kearney/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <plevine@telcordia.com>
AM Subject: CPPA 9/18/2002: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Counter Offer Suggestion Changes
Discussion
To dales points about changes in role, process specification or sequence
or choreography changes, we need to remain cognizant of the BP-related
teams work, and their expressed concern about not allowing the override
of the business rules and commitments held in the trading partner
agreement (not the CPA). It is possible that the change that Dale
mentioned could have that result. I have cc: Paul Levine in case he
wishes to comment.
Thanks.
Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:17 AM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org; Heiko Ludwig; Robert D
Kearney
Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: Counter Offer Suggestion 1: change of
subject,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