CPA composition creates an NDD for the CPA negotiation (revisedsample)

[Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>]

Hi Marty
Hi CPA negotiation team

Here my restated previous question:

Assuming that two parties have a CPP as well as an NDD for their CPP.

* CPP-A with NDD-CPP-A (CPP and NDD for CPP of party A)
* CPP-B with NDD-CPP-B (CPP and NDD for CPP of party B)

The NDD's (NDD-CPP-A, NDD-CPP-B) have negotiation items which indicate,
which elements of the CPP (CPP-A, CPP-B) are negotiatable. For
simplicity the negotiation item does not say what the party wants as
values (values, ranges, etc).

* Simplified NDD-CPP-A has one negotiation item, which deals with
element X of the CPPA XML Schema and with a specific instance of element
X in the CPP-A.
* Simplified NDD-CPP-B has one negotiation item, which deals with
element X of the CPPA XML Schema and with a specific instance of element
X in the CPP-B.

Assumption, there is only one instance of X in each CPP. Further CPP-A-X
has to match CPP-B-X. Both instances of XML Schema element X in the CPPs
have to match, lets say they are string data type and have to be equal.
So the CPA composition algorithm will have to consider NDD-CPP-A-X and
NDD-CPP-B-X to see if that would solve the problem for element X of the
CPA template.

* Simplified NDD-CPP-B has another negotiation item, which deals with
element Y of the CPPA XML Schema and with a specific instance of element
X in the CPP-A.
* Simplified NDD-CPP-B has another negotiation item, which deals with
element Z of the CPPA XML Schema and with a specific instance of element
X in the CPP-A.

Party A does not have any further elements in its NDD. Party B does not
have any further elements in its NDD.

The CPA composition process takes all 4 documents (2 CPP's and 2 NDD's)
and tries to get a CPA.

So the CPA composition process creates a CPA template and a new NDD for
the CPA template, called NDD-CPA.

**** first discussion:

Lets say there is a problem in element X and the CPA
composition cannot find a (simple matching) solution for this element,
even with the use of the NDD's.

In the NDD-CPA we suspect to find a negotiation item for element X
(NDD-CPA-X). The value, or the negotiation space of element X in the
NDD-CPA is not discussed here (but will be based upon the values of
NDD-CPP-A-X and NDD-CPP-B-X and maybe CPP-A-X and CPP-B-x).

This seems OK. 

**** second discussion:

The question about NDD-CPP-B-Y. Assume there was also a problem when
comparing CPP-A-Y with CPP-B-Y. The CPA composition algorithm
consultates the NDD-CPP-B-Y to check if that helps. Lucky the CPA
algorithm finds a value in the NDD-CPP-B-Y which matches CPP-A-Y.

This seems OK.


**** third discussion:

The question about NDD-CPP-B-Z. Assume there is a problem when
compariyng CPP-A-Z with CPP-B-Z. The CPA composition algorithm
consultates the NDD-CPP-B-Z to check if that helps. Unfortunately there
is no value in the NDD-CPP-B which would allow to match CPP-A-Z with
CPP-B-Z.

Here comes the question:

Can the CPA composition algorithm put element Z into the NDD-CPA or not?

I think, strictly speaking, the CPA composition cannot put element Z
into the NDD-CPA, because NDD-CPP-A does not allow to negotiate over
element Z. This would be a reason to abort the CPA composition and
indicate a serious problem. In this case the CPA formation process would
not even go to a CPA negotiation process.

On the other hand, this is a chance to indicate where there are problems
in the two CPP's and will indicate the CPA negotiation wher a problem
is.

Here the difference between CPPA Specification 2.0 and ANCPA
Specification 0.10 causes the problem, I think. Appendix E of the CPPA
Spec talk about the CPA composition BUT only the ANCPA introduces the
NDD properly. Appendix E even talks about a gap list without further
specifiying what a gap list is. If a gap list is a problem list, then I
think element Z should go into this gap list. If it is a NDD, element Z
cannot go into the NDD because one party simply does not allow to
negotiation over element Z.

**** fourth discussion:

There is another problem with element K but neither NDD-CPP-A nor
NDD-CPP-B have listed element K, meaning, that neither party A nor party
B wants to negotiate over element K.

This is the same as the 3rd discussion.


**** fifth discussion:

The CPA negotiation is ought to be the tool to overcome any problems.
The any becomes restricted to only what the two parties want to
negotiate.

There is the difference:

a) Things that can be negotiated; both parties support the negotiation
item in the NDD.
b) Things which have to be negotiated to come to an agreement, but are
not listed in the NDD's.

Well it can be simple as: If a problem is not mentioned in both NDD's,
it will not be negotiated and thus will allways fail (will never be a
CPA).

On the other hand it seems, that the CPA negotiation wants to be the
tool which is used to discuss, negotiate over problems, in the hope to
come closer to a solution (final CPA).

Kind regards

Sacha

-- 
------------------------------------------------
Sacha                                   Schlegel
------------------------------------------------
public key:            www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
------------------------------------------------