[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Negotiation: couple of comments on white paper outline
Hi Marty, Couple of comments on the negotiation white paper 1. Section 1.1 : Partner discovery : I agree with Peter's comment, that CPP discovery should be in related processes section and not in negotiation requirements. I think negotiation spec should begin with assumption of availability of two CPPs. 2. If there can be more than one negotiation process/ algorithms, 2.1 Can the negotiation process be defined by the business partners? 2.2 Or do they need to use one of the standard business processes / algorithms defined in the negotiation specs? Regards, Pallavi -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 3:06 PM To: Peter Ogden Cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: Negotiation: comments on white paper outline Peter, Thanks for your comments. I have a few responses. Where I don't respond, I am agreeing that the point needs to be taken up by the team. Multiple levels of conversation get awkward if done inside the document, so here are the responses. 1.1 1st bullet: I included partner discovery because of the possibility that there might be some interaction between discovery and interaction as, I recall, I heard at the F2F. Some of Dale's previous comments revolved around discovery-related matters. It's up to the team. 1.1, second comment: There might be a benefit to starting with a technical report and then fleshing it out. 1.1 Value add: In my opinion, if negotiation is normative at all, it should include CPPs with any level of complexity. BP or application domain could be value-add, at least until we get around to it :-) 3.4, first comment: We could call it an NPA but is an ordinary CPA that happens to point to a BPSS instance document that defines the negotiation protocool. 3.4, second comment: I'm afraid that there will always have to be some pre-negotiation of the PartyInfo sections of the negotiation CPA. At least, endpoint addresses will have to be filled in and agreement reached on which negotiation BPSS instance document they will use if there are more than one. I would hope that the matters to be agreed upon in the negotiation CPA would be minimal. This may be one example of where a negotiation intermediary might simplify things. It would dictate most of what is in the negotiation CPA. 3.4 Fourth comment: Human review would have to be allowed for but it would get in the way of spontaneous e-commerce. 3.5 First comment. Any of your suggestions is OK for starting purposes. I would recommend maximizing the Hamming distance between the names of the negotiation CPA and the negotiation CPP since they serve different purposes. The first controls the negotiation process and the second is the input to the negotiation process. Incidentally, everyone please think about addendum vs embedding the negotiation things into the CPP, and hence into the CPP-CPA spec. 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 **************************************************************************** ********* "Peter Ogden" <pogden@cyclonecommerce.com> on 08/29/2001 05:01:43 PM To: <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS Subject: Negotiation: comments on white paper outline Hi Marty, I added a few comments to your draft using revision markup. If anyone needs these reposted non-Microsoft, I'll be happy to do it. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:10 AM To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Negotiation: subteam logistics I have attached the initial version of the negotiation white paper / requirements document. At this morning's CPPA conference call, it was decided to hold the discussions on this document on the CPPA list rather than privately within the subteam. Everyone feel free to discuss. Please prefix the subject line by the word "Negotiation" or <Negotiation> to allow everyone to do filtering. Extensive comments on specific items in the document may be inserted into a copy of the document using revision markup. That copy can then be posted back to the list. Please note that the document references the ebXML E-Commerce Patterns, v 1.0 technical report which is available on the ebXML web site. I also distributed to the subteam a proposal prepared by Duane Nickull a few months ago. If anyone else wants a copy, let me know. Regards, Marty (See attached file: Negotiation.w.paper.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 ************************************************************************ ************* ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC