[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] CPA composition creates an NDD for the CPAnegotiation.
Forwarding off-line discussion that may be relevant to the next draft. >X-XWall-Bayes: 19 >From: Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li> >To: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com> >Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] CPA composition creates an NDD for the >CPAnegotiation. >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:24:25 -0700 >X-Assembled-By: XWall v3.28 >X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2004 01:56:18.0084 (UTC) >FILETIME=[6DA49E40:01C3DE2F] > >Hi Marty > >On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 23:09, Martin Sachs wrote: > > Hi, Sacha > > > > Before I look at your scenario in detail, you need to clarify > > something. > > > > Are elements, X, Y, W, and Z instances of different elements or are > > they instances of the same element in the different documents, > > Obviously, Y and W are different elements since both are in NDD-CPP-B > > but it is not clear about X and Z. > >Sorry for the confusion, I started off with one example and then added >more examples into it. > >I send you the corrected example, in a new email. > > > > > I believe that you have uncovered an important oversight regarding > > whether a party does not provide an NDD at all. I believe that our > > intent has been (and the draft specification states) that not > > providing an NDD leaves another party free to state (in the NDD-CPA) > > what it wants to negotiate. > >OK. > > > I do not believe that we define how a party indicates that it does > > not want to negotiate anything. > >OK, this the question then. What can a party do to say, that there is >just no negotiation about its CPP. No negotiation about any >elements/attributes. A clear take or leave it. > > > I don't think that we should require that an empty NDD should be > > published. > >Agree, an empty NDD would be of no value. > > > That would require every CPP to be accompanied by an NDD. It would > > not be backward compatible to today. I think that the rule should be > > that no NDD means no negotiation. > >That would also mean that the NDD must be very easy to find, otherwise >it would mean that there is no negotiaiton. "Very easy to find" is maybe >not that easy. If it includes to make another query (to ebXML >Registry/Repository, or company) new parameters have to be set. This >introduces again some more complexities. > > > We could add an element to the NDD that specifies one of these > > choices: > > > > 1. Contact me to discuss what is negotiable > > 2. Everything in the CPP is negotiable > > 3. Negotiable items are defined below. > > Alternatively, we could leave out (3) since if there is anything else > > in the NDD, those are what is negotiable. > >This would mean at least one NDD for each CPP. Have you thought about >the scenario, when a party has more than one NDD for a CPP? > > > However, I'm not sure that XML Schema provides a way of stating that > > the cardinality of an element is 1 if it is the only element in the > > document, and zero if there is anything else in the document. > > > > When you clarify whether X, Y, Z, and W are instances of the same or > > different elements, I will take another look at your scenario. > >Will resend you the example in another email. > >Kind regards > >Sacha > > > > > Regards, > > Marty > > > > At 03:57 AM 1/10/2004, you wrote: > > > Hi CPA negotation group > > > > > > Here the scenario which leads to a 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) > > > > > > * Simplified NDD-CPP-A has one negotiation item, which deals with > > > element X. > > > * Simplified NDD-CPP-B has one negotiation item, which deals with > > > element Y. > > > * Simplified NDD-CPP-B has one negotiation item, which deals with > > > element W. > >Element X, Y, W, and later Z are all instances of different XML CPPA >leaf-elements or attributes (please do not consider non-leaf elements >yet). > > > > > > > > The CPA composition process takes all 4 documents and tries to get a > > > CPA. > > > > > > Lets say there is a problem in element W, X, Y and Z and the CPA > > > composition cannot find a (simple matching) solution for those > > > elements, > > > even with the use of the NDD's. > > > > > > > > > So the CPA composition process creates a CPA template and a new NDD > > > for > > > the CPA template, called NDD-CPA. > > > > > > In the NDD-CPA we suspect to find a negotiation item for element X > > > and a > > > negotiation item for element Y. > > > > > > The question is about the problem with element W and Z? > > > > > > First question: Can the CPA composition algorithm put a new > > > negotiation > > > item for element Z and W into the CPA-NDD? > > > > > > I am not sure how the specification deals with this problem. I think > > > the > > > specificiation rather points to the "no" way. I even think that the > > > specification does not allow the element z in the NDD because one > > > party > > > does not want negotiate over it. > > > > > > Pro (yes - supporing thoughts): > > > > > > - element Z and W are problem cases and have to be dealt with to > > > overcome these problems. Typically the CPA negotiation could help. > > > - an entry in the CPA-NDD would indicate the problems and thus > > > parties > > > would not have to "search" for any problems again. > > > - if there is no change over element Z or W, there will never be an > > > agreement. > > > - Long term the CPA negotiation might be used, as a first instance, > > > to > > > negotiate over any problems and human to human negotiation, as a > > > last > > > instance to negotiation over any problem. > > > > > > Con (no - non supporting thoughts): > > > > > > - element W is not listed in NDD-CPP-A so party A is not willing to > > > negotiate over element W. > > > - element Z is not listed in neither NDD-CPP-A nor NDD-CPP-B. This > > > could > > > be interpreted as: neither party A nor party B allow to negotiate > > > over > > > element Z. > > > - if an element XYZ is not mentioned in a NDD-CPP, that party maybe > > > cannot negotiate over that element, e.g. just does not have the > > > negotiation algorithm for that item. So a negotiation over that > > > element > > > XYZ might be not possible. > > > - Short term the CPA negotiation might concentrate on limited > > > element/attribute negotiation. > > > > > > Second question: > > > > > > What if a party does not provide an NDD at all? Does this mean that > > > the > > > party does not allow to negotiate about anything, or opposite, that > > > it > > > allows to negotiate about anything. > > > > > > Please let me know what you think, or what the specification > > > suggests. > > > > > > Kind regards. > > > > > > Sacha Schlegel > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > Sacha Schlegel > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the > > > roster of the OASIS TC), go to > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa-negot/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > ************************************* > > Martin Sachs > > standards architect > > Cyclone Commerce >msachs@cyclonecommerce.com >-- >------------------------------------------------ >Sacha Schlegel >------------------------------------------------ >public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg >------------------------------------------------ ************************************* Martin Sachs standards architect Cyclone Commerce msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]