[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] updated message content
Bob, What do you mean by "diff"? If you mean the Unix diff, the last time I used it, lt did a character by character compare, which is not what we want here. Is there an "XML" diff, which can identify functional differences and ignore the kinds of low-level differences that don't matter (e.g. slight spelling differences in text fields that are for human information only)? If so, and if it is a well-known program, then maybe we can skip including the list of changes in the message. As to your second question, if you send me a list of changes and I don't trust you, I will do the detailed analysis anyway and call you a liar if I find a discrepancy. If people feel that the sender's list of changes cannot generally be trusted, then we might as well leave the list of changes out of the specification. Of course, if I can't trust you, it doesn't make sense to negotiate with you at all. The above is not at all facetious. Consider: If I send you a CPA template and an NDD, the NDD says that I am prepared to negotiate on every item mentioned in the NDD. If it then turns out that I won't accept counter offers on some items that are listed in the NDD, then you have the right to question my veracity - you won't trust me and we can't negotiate. Bottom line: if we don't err on the side of parties trusting each other, we won't have a very useful specification. I suggested adding the list of changes so that party B will know what changes party A made in the information from Party B's own CPA template because I believe that such a list will be helpful to Party B. Any Party B who is paranoid about errors in the list of changes can go ahead and check them for himself and make a phone call if he finds a discrepancy. 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 ************************************************************************************* bhaugen <linkage@interacc To: Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>, Martin W ess.com> Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Jean Zheng <jzheng@vitria.com> cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org 08/29/2002 01:52 Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] updated message content PM 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> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC