Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] BPSS comments

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Hima,

Here are my replies  (MWS:).

Can we use CPA Reject doc for this reject case. Depending on what we agree
on, I can change the BPSS and add success and failure conditions for
CPA_Final_BT

MWS:  I believe that we can used CPA Reject Doc for this case (rejection of
the final CPA).

Can we capture this in the document or should we add this in the process
definition. I’m comfortable with adding it in the document where we can
essentially say “If the NDD has a field of singed set and the CPA itself
sent in the CPA FINAL DOC has a signature, CPA Response Doc should have a 2
second signature if the CPA is acceptable”

MWS:  If you would prefer, we can define the test for the presence of the
first signture as normative text in the document but I believe that the
actual return of the CPA with two signatures should be captured as a BPSS
transaction that follows from the receipt of the CPA with the first
signature.

These conditions identify the fact that success from “fromBusinessState”
indicates the success of the collaboration. Same for failure. No condition
expressions indicate that any response would leave it the
BusinessTransaction in a state of success.

MWS:  OK.  I will capture this point in the explanatory text.

Going back to your comment (1.1) We may need to add a condition expression
that indicates the fact that success in only when a “CPA Final Response
Doc” is sent but not when “CPA Final Reject Doc” is sent.

MWS:  Yes, we need the above.

I assume we use different terminology just for explicit differentiation.
They all might refer to same standard CPA location.

MWS:  My comment may not have been understood. We have been discussing
allowing for either attaching the actual document (CPA template, NDD, final
CPA) to the message or including its URL in the message.  Is it practical
to allow both options?  If so, does anything have to be explicitly included
either in the BPSS instance or in the NCPA?

I think when reference to ID is made, it’s explicitly named as
“<element>id” or “<element>idRef” in the BPSS spec. Any specific places
where it’s not explicit? Let me know and I can send a comment on BPSS spec
to WG.

MWS:  I agree that the BPSS distinguishes use of name attribute from use of
ID attribute.  I was only asking whether there is a specific reason for
using one or the other.

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


                                                                                                                                
                      "Himagiri(Hima)                                                                                           
                      Mukkamala"               To:       Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                        
                      <himagiri@sybase.        cc:       ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org                                  
                      com>                     Subject:  Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] BPSS comments                                   
                                                                                                                                
                      10/07/2002 12:14                                                                                          
                      PM                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                




Marty,

Attaching document with my comments highlighted..

thanks
hima

Martin W Sachs wrote:

> My comments on the 9/16 BPSS instance are attached.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> (See attached file: BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc)
>
>
*************************************************************************************

>
> 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
>
*************************************************************************************

>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                  Name: BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc
>    BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc    Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
>                              Encoding: BASE64



#### BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc has been removed from this note on October
07 2002 by Martin W Sachs