[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ebxml-cppa-comment] About the final CPA problem?
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:57:30 -0400
To: "Antonio" <antony65@mis.cycu.edu.tw>
From: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-comment] About the final CPA problem?
Cc: "MAX_Hinet" <max.chi@msa.hinet.net>, <ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>, <ebxml-cppa-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hello, Antonio:
I have inserted some replies below, labelled MWS:
At 07:47 PM 7/13/2003 +0800, Antonio wrote:
Hello, Martin.
I am Antonio from Taiwan.
Do you still remember me ?
I have some problems about the "final CPA."
Could you help me to solve this?
Sorry...my English is not good ,but I try to explain the problems.
The problem is :
MWS: We need one more piece of information: Which Party will send the initial offer to negotiate (send a CPA template and the combined NDD)? For purposes of this discussion, I define that Party-A composes the CPA template and combined NDD and sends them as the initial offer.
If "First Party - A" and "Second Party- B " want to negotiate their CPPs and want to generate the common CPA.
And If we have CPP-A , NDD-A and CPP-B ,NDD-B (4 documents).
Step1：I assume the 4 documents' structure is below:
CPP-A's elements are "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H"
NDD-A's elements are "A,B,C,D"
CPP-B's elements are "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H"
NDD-B's elements are "A,B,C,D,E,F"
So the NDD Template (the intersection of NDD-A and NDD-B) will be like "A,B,C,D"
MWS: To a first approximation, this is correct. Party-A does not agree to negotiate E and F, so Party-A does not include E and F in the combined NDD. Please understand, however, that if Party-A's values for elements E and F are not acceptable to Party-B, the negotiation fails immediately. An alternative is that Party-A could decide to negotiate on elements E and F since Party-B wants to negotiate. In that case, Party-A includes E and F in the combined NDD as well as A, B, C, and D.
MWS: Please note: The specification does not define the term "NDD Template". Party-A offers an NDD to Party B in the initial offer. Party-A MUST make use of Party-B's NDD in forming the NDD for the initial offer if Party-B's NDD is available to Party-A. (This is a change to what is in the current draft specification which I am proposing to eliminate some inconsistencies in the draft.)
The NDD Template's values of elements( "A,B,C,D") are different.
Step2：If they generate the CPA Template from CPP-A and CPP-B.
The CPA Template will be the "combination" from CPP-A and CPP-B.
The structure of CPA Template is below：
MWS: Actually, Party-A generates the CPA Template since Party-A will make the initial offer. See also below regarding the meaning of values of elements in an NDD.
<CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
<Status>
.........
<PartyInfo>CPP-A </PartyInfo>
<A> 1 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 3 </C>
<D> 4 </D>
<E> 5 </E>
<F> 6 </F>
<G> 7 </G>
<H> 8 </H>
<PartyInfo>CPP-B</PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 11 </B>
<C> 12 </C>
<D> 13 </D>
<E> 14 </E>
<F> 15 </F>
<G> 16 </G>
<H> 17 </H>
<Comment>
........
</CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
MWS: The CPA Template is correct.
Step3：If they use the method of negotiation message to negotiate the NDD Template.
MWS: The current specification does not define negotiating the NDD combined NDD. Party-A prepares the combined NDD and sends it to Party-B with the CPA Template. Party-A MUST consider Party-B's NDD if it is available to Party-A as well as its own in constructing the initial offer NDD. Party-A MUST NOT include anything that is not in Party-B's NDD since absence from Party_B's NDD means that Party-B is not willing to negotiate such items.
After negotiating,finally they both accept the values("A,B,C,D") of NDD Template.
Therefore,The NDD Template's values of elements( "A,B,C,D") could be the same or different. ----------------- Right ot Wrong???
MWS: As I discussed above, there is no negotiation of what is in the NDD. Also, in general, the NDD contains names of elements and attributes and the acceptable ranges of their values. A single value in the NDD for an element or attribute means that it is not negotiable. If an element or attribute is not negotiable, it is omitted from the NDD and Party-A obtains its non-negotiable value from Party-B's CPP and puts that value in the CPA Template.
And we will make the NDD Template's values to return to the CPA Template's value.
In another word, the CPA Template's value will be replaced with the NDD Template's values. ----------------- Right ot Wrong???
MWS: See may answer above. Non-negotiable values in the CPA Template come from the CPPs, not from the NDDs.
If it is Right.
And I won't know what is the final CPA's structure.------------------？？
The below(maybe1 & maybe2) is my guess：
Maybe 1：The elements(E,F,G,H) are disappear.
I feel a little strange for situation.
MWS: G and H do not disappear. Their values come from the CPPs if the CPPs contain consistent values. If the values in the two CPPs are not consistent, the negotiation fails since the Parties do not want to negotiate G and H (they are not in the NDDs). E and F might be negotiable if (as I discussed above) Party A decides to negotiate them since they are in Party B's NDD. If Party-A did not add E and F to the NDD for the initial offer, they are not negotiable and the negotiation fails if the two CPPs do not have consistent values for these elements.
<CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
<Status>
.........
<PartyInfo>CPP-A </PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 3 </C>
<D> 20 </D>
<PartyInfo>CPP-B</PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 12 </C>
<D> 13 </D>
<Comment>
........
</CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
Maybe 2：The elements(E,F,G,H) are still existence. but why...................？？
MWS: See my answer directly above.
<CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
<Status>
.........
<PartyInfo>CPP-A </PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 3 </C>
<D> 20 </D>
<E> 5 </E>
<F> 6 </F>
<G> 7 </G>
<H> 8 </H>
<PartyInfo>CPP-B</PartyInfo>
<A> 10 </A>
<B> 2 </B>
<C> 12 </C>
<D> 13 </D>
<E> 14 </E>
<F> 15 </F>
<G> 16 </G>
<H> 17 </H>
<Comment>
........
</CollaborationProtocolAgreement>
Best Regards,
Antonio
P.S.
I am studying the "ebXML Automated Negotiation of Collaboration Protocol Agreements"
MWS: I am pleased that you are studying and building a prototype of the system. Your query helped me to fix some inconsistencies in the NDD rules.If your university is a member of OASIS, you are welcome to contribute to our team by joining the CPPA team and negotiation subteam and subscribing to ebXML-cppa-negotiation. If your university is not a member of OASIS, you are welcome to continue asking questions and contributing through ebxml-cppa-comment.
And I am building the ACNP system (Automated Collaboration and Negotiation Platform).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
徐瑞谷 (Antonio Hsu)
中原大學 資訊管理研究所
Institute of Information Management, CYCU
TEL：886-(0)3-2655418
Cell Phone：0937537955
Email：antony65@mis.cycu.edu.tw
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]