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

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Sacha and Michael,

Thank you very much for your excellent discussion, which will considerably 
help to improve the ANCPA specification.

Regards,
Marty


At 10:42 AM 2/3/2004, Sacha Schlegel wrote:
>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
> >
> >

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com