Fwd: AW: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Issues for Discussion: templates and dummy values

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Forwarding, from Michael Vetter.


>Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:42:20 +0200
>From: "Vetter, Michael" <Michael.Vetter@iao.fraunhofer.de>
>Subject: AW: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Issues for Discussion: templates and dummy
>  values
>To: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>
>Cc: Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>,
>         ebxml-cppa-comment <ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Thread-Topic: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Issues for Discussion: templates and 
>dummy
>  values
>Thread-Index: AcSaQ6TDv9CpixvsSYqF/HsbV+TofQAABHqQ
>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>X-XWall-Bayes: 20
>X-XWall-Excl: white-list
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 14:43:11.0447 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[2878DE70:01C49A69]
>
>Hi Marty
>
>I have some comments on your discussion about templates and dummy
>values. I think that adding an optional attribute "dummy value" to all
>relevant items in the CPPA spec could avoid confusion and ease the
>management of CPA templates with several NDDs. When a template is
>created the elements that need to be included in a corresponding NDD can
>already be marked in the CPA template. After creation of the NDD the
>tags can be used to check automatically whether something has been
>forgotten. When someone looks at the template he does not have to check
>the NDD to detect dummy values. A system would have to parse the CPA
>template anyway to check whether it conforms to his party's CPP. It
>would no longer be mandatory to have a NDD for a CPA template that just
>needs some party information to be filled in. The presence of dummy
>values could also be used to check whether a CPA is still in template or
>already in (acceptable) draft status.
>
>regards
>
>Michael
>
>
> > Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Issues for Discussion
> >
> >     * From: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>
> >     * To: "Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>
> >     * Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:12:30 -0400
> >
> > Below are some replies to Sacha's comments.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marty
> >
> > At 07:20 PM 9/8/2004, Kartha, Neelakantan wrote:
> > >Everyone,
> > >
> > >Here is a partial list of issues for discussion in the next
> > call. All
> > >line and section numbers refer to the pdf draft dated 11/2/2003
> > >(attached for your convenience). Come ready to discuss these
> > during the next call!
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >
> > >Kartha
> > >=======================================================
> > >Issues:
> > >
> > >1.(From Sacha) There is no schema for a CPA template. What
> > is a valid
> > >CPA template? As once discussed a CPA only has one deliveryChannel
> > >element whereas there can be more in a CPA template to keep
> > the preference ...
> > >Probably the CPPA schema is valid for a CPA template but ...
> > not realy ...
> > >Glossary says that a CPA template is a CPA with open fields, hence a
> > >CPA template will never be a valid CPA. A CPA template cannot be
> > >validated, can it? Maybe a CPA template does not have to be
> > validated ...
> >
> > MWS: It is intended that a CPA template conform to the CPPA
> > schema. I believe that somewhere in the draft spec., it says
> > that open fields must have values that enable the CPA
> > template to be valid for the CPPA schema.
> > The NDD indicates which values will be replaced by the
> > results of negotiation.
> > >2. (From Sacha)  Line 250: I think the CPA should have an attribute
> > >with possible values, such as "CPA template" or a "final
> > CPA" or simply
> > >a
> > "temporary-test-something-that-looks-like-a-CPA-and-might-beco
> > me-a-CPA".
> > MWS:  This might be useful.  This is primarily a CPA issue.
> > If it is done, the negotiation spec. must include rules for
> > changing the value of that attribute when the negotiation
> > results in an agreed CPA.
> >
> > >3. (From Sacha)  Line 286: I thought the term "draft CPA" should no
> > >longer be used and the term "CPA template" should be used. Or a
> > >description of what the difference is, if there is any
> > anymore. Might
> > >have to be aligned with the CPPA Spec and maybe the ebXML
> > Architecture Spec. if not already done.
> > >Line 286: Section 6.2 only talks about CPA template, not one
> > word about
> > >draft CPA.
> >
> > MWS: "Draft" is explained in section 6.1. The term is used in
> > many places in the draft spec. Someone needs to review the
> > use of the term "draft"
> > throughout the draft spec. to see if the distinction between
> > "draft" and "template" is meaningful.
> >
> > >8. How would one distinguish dummny values from real values
> > in in CPA
> > >template (line 515).
> >
> > MWS:  Information in the NDD identifies those elements and
> > attributes whose values will be replaced in the negotiation
> > process. We should not attempt to add "dummy" indicators to
> > the CPA.  That would add complexity to the CPPA spec. without
> > providing new information that isn't already in the NDD.
> >
> >

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