[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Negotiation Business Process Implementation]
<hima> inline.
>
> > > From: Sacha Schlegel <schlegel@cs.curtin.edu.au>
> > > To: ebxml-cppa-negot-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Cc: schlegel@cs.curtin.edu.au
> > > Subject: Negotiation Business Process Implementation
> > > Date: 21 May 2003 01:39:23 +0800
> > >
> > > Hi ebXML CPPA-Negotiation team
> > >
> > > For project at Curtin University, Perth, Australia I have implemented a
> > > very basic non-compliant Business Service Interface (BSI) which "tries"
> > > to implement the Negotiation Business Process Specification (NBPS)
> > > instance XML file (uuid="bpid:ebXML:CPPA-Negotiation",
> > > version=."R02.00">.
> > >
> > > Have difficulties with the NBPS.
> > >
> > > From my understanding (also from reading the Automated Negotiation of
> > > Collaboration Protocol Agreements Specificiation Version 0.04) a valid
> > > negotiation can be the following:
> > >
> > >
> > > A -------------offer--------------> B
> > > A <----counter pending offer------- B (after 1st BC finished)
> > > A <---------counter offer---------- B (begin 2nd BC)
> > > A -----counter pending offer------> B
> > > A ----------counter offer---------> B
> > > A <---------accept----------------- B
> > > A --------final response----------> B (after 2nd BC finished)
> > >
> > > Legend:
> > >
> > > A Party A
> > > B Party B
> > > BC Binary Collaboration
> > >
> > > Assumption: There is allways a "counter pending offer" followed by a
> > > "counter offer" in the BinaryCollaboration "CPA Negotiation Counter
> > > Offer BC".
> > >
<hima> I'm not sure if you are looking at the latest version of the NBPS
document. Latest version has a "Final BT" which involves sending
the final CPA by the party accepting the earlier offer and the party
that made the final offer responds to the final CPA.
I've only used the preConditions and postCOnditions to convey the role change
in textual format given that current version of the bpss doess not let
users represent machine readable "conditional logic". But the role
reversal is conveyed in an automated fashion by using two different
BTAs for the same business transaction. Essentially, there are two
different BTAs for "Counter Offer -> counter offer pending" process.
(Roles for the counter offer BC)
Counter offer Init Role <---------> Counter Offer Respond Role
Counter Offer ---------> (1)
<--------- Counter Offer Pending (2)
<--------- Counter Offer (3)
Counter Offer Pending ----------> (4)
Counter Offer ---------> (5)
<--------- Accept Offer (6)
<--------- Final CPA (7)
Final CPA Response ----------> (8)
1 &2 correspond to Counter offer BT but is initiated by role
"Counter Offer Initiator". 3 & 4 correspond to "Counter Offer BT"
but is initated by role "Counter Offer Responder". Hence it's the
same BT but performed by using different BTAs. There are transitions
from steps 2 to 3 if there was a counter offer pending response.
Similarty there is a transition from 6 to 7 which is the final BT that
I mentioned earlier. Steps 7 & 8 belong to "Final BT" but there
are two different BTAs for the same transaction depending on which
role send the acceptance. So if step 4 was "Accept" instead of "COP"
then "Final BT" would have been initiated by "Counter offer Intiator".
These steps are part of "Counter offer Collaboration" described in
the NBPS. Negotiation process would come to this process only
if the first offer from "Negotiation Initiator" was responded to
by "Negotiation Responder" with a "Counter Pending OFfer".
One thing I do seem might be a problem is associating the fact
that "Negotiation Responder" is the same as
"Negotiation Counter Offer Initiator". What I should probably do
is name the roles in the Collaboratoin Activity using "Negotiation Iniator"
and "Negotiation Responder". This way it will be clear that
"Negotiation Initiator" will correspond to initiatin role in
"Counter Offer Collaboration" i.e. "Counter Offer Initiator Role"
Hope this helps. Please feel free to continue this
discussion.
Thanks
hima
>
> > > Studying the NBPS I dont get to the above assumption. Assuming that the
> > > "postCondition" in the BusinessTransactionActivity "CPA Counter Offer 2
> > > BTA" and "CPA Counter Offer 1 BTA" indicates the "reversion". BTW the
> > > value of "postCondition" which is "Parties reverse roles they play"
> > > cannot be interpreted by a common BSI IMHO.
> > >
> > > The error I see is that the parties revers roles ONLY if one party
> > > responds to a counter offer with "counter pending offer" but not with an
> > > accept or reject doc. That is not clear from the NBPS
> > >
> > > Kind regards.
> > >
> > > Sacha Schlegel
> > >
> > > PS: Next step is to provide a user interface (sort of backend) to the
> > > BSI to set the content of the offer and counter offer documents to
> > > negotiate over a draft CPA and its NDD.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Sacha Schlegel
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > 4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth, Australia
> > > sacha@schlegel.li www.schlegel.li
> > > public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> >--
> >------------------------------------------------
> >Sacha Schlegel
> >------------------------------------------------
> >4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth, Australia
> >sacha@schlegel.li www.schlegel.li
> >public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
> >------------------------------------------------
>
> *************************************
> Martin Sachs
> standards architect
> Cyclone Commerce
> msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> signature1.ascName: signature1.asc
> Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]