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

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Hi Sacha,

You have provided an excellent discussion of the problems. I agree with 
almost all of it. I hope that others will review and comment on it. I have 
a few comments below (MWS:).

Regards,
Marty

At 04:04 AM 1/19/2004, Sacha Schlegel wrote:
>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.

MWS: Our working assumption has been that phone or email will be
used to exchange information on the problems that prevent
automate negotiation and reach
agreements on them to arrive at a CPA Template which can then be
the basis for automated negotiation of the items that are amenable
to automated negotiation. I suppose that one could formalize the
process of dealing with the things that cannot be negotiated automatically
as perhaps exchanges of defined ebXML messages, but human input
will still be needed.


>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.

MWS: Yes, the gap list is a problem list. It is the items that have to be
discussed person to person before completing the CPA.

MWS: Appendix E is not normative. It is a suggested approach for creating
a CPA and it was written before the negotiation work
started. At one time, I considered moving Appendix E into the negotiation 
document.
I decided to leave it where it is because a discussion of how to combine 
two CPPs
into a CPA (without automated negotiation) provides useful education for 
CPA implementers.


>**** 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.

MWS:  I would say "The any becomes restricted to only what the two parties 
want to
negotiate automatically. Other mismatches have to be negotiated human to 
human."

>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).

MWS:  Negotiation incompatibility between two Parties is always possible.
That's why there will always be cases where human discussion is needed
to resolve incompatibilities.

>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).

MWS:  I totally agree.


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

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