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

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

This may be a bit of overhead on the front end but likely save overall.

> 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
>
>
> 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. 
>
>