1/27/2004 ActionItem: Potential Expressive Shortcomings in Role withincurrent BPSS Approach

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

> Sachs: Regarding simultaneous enactments:  The CPA has a 
> concurrentConversations attribute that specifies the maximum number of 
> concurrent conversations that can be performed under this CPA.  It was 
> intended as a performance management tool. It is close to 
> "simultaneous enactments" except that it doesn't provide more detailed 
> functions such as "at what hours". From what I read below, 
> "simultaneous enactments" appears to be a static parameter that could 
> be added to the CPA.

mm2: Dale and Anders, role reversal was discussed in early January, with 
suggestions from your both where more n occupant ==> role, an authorized 
role, role capability (expressed in CPA perhaps) and any notion of 
capacity (see above).   We seem to have abstract roles (role types), 
roles and occupants required:

    * abstract roles - business transaction
    * role - BTA, binary collaboration
    * occupants - TBD

In addition, we have to think about business partner and role.  How can 
we frame some/any enhancements to the current BPSS definition to further 
Work Item 28?

Thanks.

(some) References:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200401/msg00028.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200401/msg00047.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200401/msg00066.html

> At 06:05 AM 1/9/2004, Anders W. Tell wrote:
>
>> 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          /
>> /////////////////////////////////////
>
>
> *************************************
> Martin Sachs
> standards architect
> Cyclone Commerce
> msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
>