Re: multiparty (was) Fwd: Re: message routing

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Bob,

On a more serious note, please see below. (like I said in
my previous posting, I couldn't resist;-)

Seriously yours,

Chris

bhaugen wrote:
<snip/>
> 
> There are lots of rules for business deals before ecommerce.
> It ain't as loosey-goosey as Horshack may think.

Rules were made to be broken. I'm more inclined to believe
that it IS in fact as loosey-goosey as Horshack thinks.

> 
> My main message here is to look at the business requirements,
> that is, the common rules of commerce, for what needs to be
> supported in ebXML.  At least as a starting point.

Agreed.

> 
> > Why would or for that matter should this be ANY different in e-business?
> > IMO, each party in a collaboration, multiparty or otherwise, can only
> > *control* its own participation. It can and more than likely should
> > know only about the state of affairs between itself and its direct
> > partners, not its partner's partners.
> 
> In an offer-acceptance transaction, in the meat world, the offerer
> controls (decides whether the acceptance closes the deal or not).
> In as order-fulfillment collaboration, the party whose commitment
> is supposed to be fulfilled decides whether it was or was not
> fulfilled.  If I owe you $10 and pay you $9, do I get to say
> we're even?

This is very different than characterizing control as singular,
but there's more to it than just who can say we're done.

It all depends upon your perspective, and there are many
perspectives involved, not just business. There's technical
as well and I believe that these are often confused as being
one and the same.

Control from a legal POV such as you describe above is quite
diffferent from who can or should send a message. I don't believe
that there are any rules which govern who can call whom first to
inquire of or dispute some claim made by the other.

The reality is that stuff happens, there is no denying this
fact. We cannot ever hope to achieve some nirvana of perfect
order and/or control according to some predetermined rules.

Back to perspective, from the mailroom POV, legal control over
some state shared between two parties is irrelevant. That's for
the suits to work out. The MSH is no different.

I've had a LOT of folk tell me that their customers
routinely allow things to proceed even though it would appear
on the surface that the "rules" have been broken. That's
how business gets done in the real world. In the real world,
a PO received one day after the quote had expired MAY be
honored/accepted depending upon who the customer is, how
much business he does, how quickly he pays his bills, etc.

His PO might be initially rejected by some low level clerk,
but following a call to someone more senior, it is reopened
and approved and the low level clerk gets an earful about
how important WyleECoyoteDotCom is to our success here at 
AcmeDotCom.

> 
> As to your partner's partners, I fully agree with you.  That was
> one of my other points - it may all be resolvabled to dialogs.

On this point, I agree. 

> 
> > Gee, I wonder how business gets done these days without some
> > great UML model in the sky telling us what to do every step of
> > the way...
> 
> Do you really think there are no rules for this stuff?

See above. Yes, there are rules, but in most cases, rules are
treated as guidelines. In the example you cited, where you owe
me $10 and yet pay me only $9 and ask if you get to call us even,
we might if we both had a gentlemens agreement to round down to the
nearest $9.00 on any transactions between us. The reality is that
you can say we're even, but that doesn't necessarily make it so, 
we have to AGREE that we're even. In the example above, you
could claim we're even, but I can sue you for $1 if I choose. Of course,
I am not obliged to sue you since you're generally a pretty nice guy;-)
Although, the stock price is pretty depressed and I could use
all the money I can get. But then again, it'll cost us a gazillion
to sue you and the lawyers will end up winning and we won't
be partners any longer... Hmmm, let me flip a coin...

No, wait... this calls for a business decision! There are no longer
any rules. This is why they pay me the big bucks afterall, isn't
it;-)

> 
> Have fun,
> Bob Haugen
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard