RE AW: 1 or 2 xpath expression per negotiatable information item

["Sacha Schlegel" <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>]

Hi Micheal
Hi Marty

Michael, thanks for your quick comment.

I also support your idee of having the information of conflicts of the CPA
composition along with the new negotiation information, eg NDD.

Having analysed Appendix E of the CPPA Spec and the Automated Negotiation
of CPA (ANCPA) Spec I see two things, in particular for the CPA
negotation:

a) to negotiate over problems found by the CPA composition tool
b) to negotiate because we can

Comments for a)

Appendix E of the CPPA Spec says, that there are problem in the two CPP's,
that it will be the CPA negotiation which will deal with. The ANCPA Spec,
unfortunately only provides the negotiation infrastructure but not
solutions to CPP't-to-CPA-merging-problems. Appendix E of the CPPA Spec
talks about the gap list but not how this gap list will get integrated
into the CPA negotiation. Here comes your comment to include that gap list
into the NDD for the CPA Negotiation.

Comments for b)

To negotiate because we can. This is the whole negotiation part. To
negotiate over elements, so both parties might find a win-win situation
which was not the case before negotiation.

Basically conlicts of a) have to get negotiated but are somewhat special
cases for negotiation because they might not be listed in the initial
NDD's for the CPP's. Further those conflicts might have to be rated as:
serious-will-never-result-in-a-cpa to
minor-conflict-defenitely-worth-to-negotiate.

The ANCPA Specification is in my view not clear about that, see email
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa-negot/200401/msg00013.html

So I suggest to

a) better differentiate between NDD for CPP and NDD for CPA template and
b) better differentiate between negotiation over conflits (from gap list)
and negotiation items.

I assume, that the CPA negotiation team tries to merge both cases into
one, eg to find a nice solution which fits both cases....

Kind regards

Sacha
---- original message

Hi Sacha and Marty

I agree with Sacha that the second XPath is only useful for the NDD that
accompanies
a CPA template/draft.
May be two diffent schemata for NDD and MNDD (merged NDD) would reduce the
confusion.
A MNDD could also include conflicts that occur during the merging process.

Kind regards

Michael

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Sacha Schlegel [mailto:sacha_oasis@schlegel.li]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Februar 2004 10:36
> An: msachs@cyclonecommerce.com; Vetter, Michael
> Cc: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
> Betreff: 1 or 2 xpath expression per negotiatable information item
>
>
> Hi Marty
> Hi Michael
>
> We had once the discussion whether an NDD item needs one or
> two XPath expression. Michael and me were thinking it needs
> two XPath expression. I think I know why Michael and me were
> thinking that.
>
> This introduces an issue of the ANCPA Specification.
>
> I think we have to differentiate between an NDD for a CPA
> template and an NDD for a CPP.
>
> o An NDD item for a CPA template seems to need 2 XPath
> expressions. o An NDD item for a CPP seems to need 1 XPath expression.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Sacha
>
>