Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] updated message content

[bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

What's wrong with a diff?
And if a computed diff disagrees with the
list of changes, then what?


----- Original Message -----
From: Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>
To: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>; Jean Zheng <jzheng@vitria.com>
Cc: <ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] updated message content


> I suggest that we recommend the following:  If a party creates the CPA
> template for an initial offer by modifying the other party's published
> CPA
> template, the party making an SHOULD offer include the changes made to
> the
> other party's CPA (deleted, updated, inserted).  This is information
is
> not
> essential but might save the other party effort in analyzing the
offered
> template.
>
> - Does anyone have thoughts on this particular item?  Will it be
useful
> to
> the receiving party or would the receiving party prefer to analyze the
> whole offer anyway?
>
> If you provide the flexibility to do either, then when implementation
> decisions are made (for performance or other constraints) that can be
> accommodated.  Either way, the receiving party will have business
> decisions to make (and potentially interaction with enterprise
systems).
> For optimization, I support the former.
>
> Monica J. Martin
> Drake Certivo, Inc.
> 208.585.5946
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs
> Sent: Wed 8/28/2002 8:16 AM
> To: Jean Zheng
> Cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] updated message content
>
>
>
>
> Jean,
>
> I suggest the following with regard to Negotiation Content
> (under Business
> Documents on page  1 of your writeup).
>
> We need one more bullet under Negotiation Content:
> - Accepted elements.  These are the elements in the prior offer
> or counter
> offer that the sending party has accepted. Providing this
> information
> enables the other party to keep track of progress without having
> to do a
> detailed analysis in each iteration.
>
> The words in the specification need to include attributes as
> well as
> elements.  I suggest saying "item" and explaining that an item
> is an
> element or attribute.
>
> Should we provide for referring to the root of an entire subtree
> instead of
> referring to all its individual elements and attributes? There
> are at least
> two cases for this:
> 1. Stating that a whole subtree has been accepted.
> 2. Stating that the presence or absence of a subtree is
> negotiable but none
> of its child elements are negotiable.
>
> I suggest that we recommend the following:  If a party creates
> the CPA
> template for an initial offer by modifying the other party's
> published CPA
> template, the party making an SHOULD offer include the changes
> made to the
> other party's CPA (deleted, updated, inserted).  This is
> information is not
> essential but might save the other party effort in analyzing the
> offered
> template.
>
> - Does anyone have thoughts on this particular item?  Will it be
> useful to
> the receiving party or would the receiving party prefer to
> analyze the
> whole offer anyway?
>
> 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.          To:
ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
> com>                     cc:
> Subject:  [ebxml-cppa-negot] updated message content
> 08/22/2002 10:43
> PM
> Per our discussion from last week, here is the updated message
content.
> Changes made:
> 1. incorporating Hima's BPSS instance description: one Offer,
> followed by a
> group of Counter-Offers until a final Reject or Accept or
> Expired.
> 2. Add in "BusinessDocumentName" element into each message, it
> is used to
> identify the actual Message.
>
> <<NegotiationMessageContent.doc>>
>
> Any suggestion is appreciated!  Please also let me know if I
> missed
> anything or misunderstood anything.
>
> Cheers,
> Jean
>
>
> #### NegotiationMessageContent.doc has been removed from this
> note on
> August 28 2002 by Martin W Sachs
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>