RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline

[Jean Zheng <Jzheng@vitria.com>]

Marty,
Thank you for your comments.  I've updated the draft based on your
suggestions.  

I was borrowing terminologies from RosettaNet when I was using
Transaction/Action. I've changed them to Binary Collaboration and
Transaction, respectively.

I did intent for the NegotiateProposedCPA to be sent by either Party during
the negotiation process.  But I didn't make the point as clear as you have
stated.  To illustrate this point, I added in a few simple pattern diagrams.

Regarding NDD that accompany either a CPA or a CPA Template, I did include
it in the InitiatingCPANegotiation.  Is that what you were referring to?
Maybe my notation is a bit confusing, I intended to use {} to indicate a
substitute block (either a CPA or a CPA Template).  Any element outside of
{} are common/required for the initial message.
Please let me know if I misunderstood your meaning.

Cheers,
Jean

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 8:23 PM
To: Jean Zheng
Cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline



Jean,

This is a great beginning.  Of course, we will eventually have to reconcile
the message content with the proposed business process definition.

A few comments:

I would call Negotiation a binary collaboration.  What you are calling
Actions are presumably the business transactions in the BPSS sense. I
suggest that we use terminology consistent with BPSS.

schemaLocation (NDD, CPA, CPA Template): We may need to specify
schemaLocation to keep some parsers happy but the Schemata should not be
something that can be customized.  Our goal should be that all CPAs have
the same schema (as is true today), all CPA Templates have the same Schema
and all NDDs have the same Schema.

We agreed that there would be an NDD with a CPA Template as well as with a
CPP.

NegotiateProposedCPA:  As you have written the draft it seems that one
party proposes a CPA and the other can issue NegotiateProposedCPA as a
counterproposal.  For now, let's assume that either party can issue this to
the other party.  For example:

   1. Party A proposes a CPA to Party B
   2. Party B sends NegotationProposedCPA with specific details.
   3. Party A responds with NegotiateProposedCPA with details as a counter
to Party B's proposed changes.
   4. Iterate over 2 and 3 until agreement is reached.
   5. One party sends the other an updated CPA.
This is one place where we will need to reconcile the message definition
with the proposed business process definition.

Regards,
Marty

****************************************************************************
*********

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
****************************************************************************
*********



Jean Zheng <Jzheng@vitria.com> on 02/10/2002 09:05:34 PM

To:    ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:    [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline



Hello,

Sorry I've missed our conference call.  I've been buried in my day job.
Finally I'm allowed to surface and breathe a few bubbles.  :)

Here is an outline of Message Content for CPA Negotiation Process.
Hopefully it is enough to get our discussion started.  I will revise this
as
we are moving forward...

Since it is supposed to be just a list, I adopted a very strange syntax.  I
hope it is not too confusing.  Any suggestions are welcome!

 <<NegotiationMessageContent.doc>>
Cheers,
Jean






----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

NegotiationMessageContent.doc