RE: CPPA 9/18/2002: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Counter Offer SuggestionChanges Discussion

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Monica,

Let me clarify what I was proposing. I was not proposing
altering some existing BPSS instance but instead having
a draft CPA reference a different (though related) ProcessSpecification
which was an entirely different BPSS instance. 

There is not here, therefore,
an override of the rules/commitments embodied in some given
BPSS instance but a replacement of one instance by another.
(E.g., complicatedBPSSPOInstance by simplifiedBPSSPOInstance...)
I see nothing in BP-related work that precludes such a
situation.

Unless you imagine that there will be one canonical BPSS
instance used by all PO processes, for example, I suspect
that there will be several BPSS instances all dealing
in various ways with purchase orders. The connection
to different documents (PIPs vs OAGIS BODs for example)
could distinguish one BPSS instance from another. Some
may not use business signals to verify business content
prior to checking business rules for a response,
but instead simply rely on negative or positive flavors of
response. 

I think it would be important for the BP-related
groups to address the issue of variants of processes
at some point to clarify their position(s). But 
I doubt very much that BP-teams should presume
that one BPSS instance for a business function
will satisfy all verticals/ trading communities.

Dale Moberg

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:mmartin@certivo.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:03 AM
To: Dale Moberg; Martin W Sachs
Cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org; Heiko Ludwig; Robert D
Kearney; plevine@telcordia.com
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>