Re: [ebxml-bp] ActionItem: Potential Expressive Shortcomings in Roleinformation within current BPSS approach

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

Monica J. Martin wrote:

> mm1: Business process description.

AWT: Yes + that any Party signature usually attributes to Authorship.

>
>> * capability - a party has expressed that party business syste kan 
>> handle certain b.transactions (type level) 
>
>
> mm1: Isn't this expressed in the party's CPP or a CPA template prior 
> to any negotiation?

AWT Yes, in a CPPA environment, CollaborationRole makes a general 
Capability statement for a party (signed by representative A with 
authorization CapAR from company X)
At enactment/runtime then the parties assumes that Capabilty exists and 
uses the Capability together with some Credentials relating to a 
AuthorizedRole (representative B with authorization AR from Company X)

> * capacity - ontop of having the capability a party may also express 
> that the party has the capacity to use/utilize the capability in 
> certain ways (instance level). ex: 6 simultanous enactments, only 
> during office hours,...
>
> mm1: Perhaps Dale can answer if this is applicable after the CPA 
> negotiation occurs. I am not sure.

AWT: I dont think its in CPPA. Furthermore Capacity to delivery a 
service is usually a dynamic business level aspect and doesnt really fit 
into a Static CPPA. It usually in Business Level Agreements or 
determined by conducting negotiation or by a engaging in a 
BusinessDialog that results in a delivery promises and corresponding rights.


/anders

-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website: <www.toolsmiths.se>      /
/ email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>    /
/ phone: +46 8 545 885 87           /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////