Re: [cppa negot] 9/1/2003 [Fwd: [legalxml-econtracts] Automated Contract Negotiations

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Since we have put off negotiation at the business level to an unspecified 
future time, I think that we can leave most of what legalXML has to say 
until we get to the business level.  The way I read the first bullet below, 
it is possible that the legalXML conditions might first have to be applied 
to the CPA and CPP. That might in turn lead to changes in the negotiation spec.

The third bullet might suggest things we could conisder now since they may 
affect infrastructure definitions.

As to "presentation", I believe that one of the original goals of legalXML 
was to produce machine-readable legal documents. I don't recommend 
commenting back on that item without knowing a lot more about their goals 
and technical requirements than I now know. I am also a bit concerned about 
any XML-based specification that mandates particular tools or 
products.  Here, I would want to know more about whether they are 
discussing specific vendors' tools and products or are really discussing a 
set of requirements on tools and products.  The latter is well within the 
scope of a standards team.

Regards,
Marty


At 11:04 AM 9/2/2003 -0600, Monica Martin wrote:
>What is interesting about both of these automated negotiation inputs:
>
>    * Concentrates on business agreements, which may guide, restrict,
>      levy requirements on the technical infrastructure to meet those
>      commitments.
>    * Looks at the presentation of the contracts, specifically using
>      tools (although they should be product/tool independent).  Should
>      we make that comment back to that team?
>    * Seeks to place important controls on the negotiation: document
>      integrity, risk management, query, etc.
>
>The key is how does it affect us in how we think about CPA negotiation, as 
>it may interact with/receive requirements from the business negotiation 
>(contracts or otherwise).  I am seeing more and more that the LegalXML 
>relates to / may overlap with CEFACT UBAC.
>
>Thoughts anyone?
>
>Thanks.

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com