Re: [ebxml-cppa] [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Bob,

The initiator and responder don't necessarily have to switch places.  The
counter offer could be a response message.  However, this is good food for
thought and I am cross-posting to the CPPA negotiation sugteam.

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
*************************************************************************************



"bhaugen" <linkage@interaccess.com> on 12/10/2001 09:29:56 PM

To:    "Arvola Chan" <arvola@tibco.com>, "Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala"
       <himagiri@sybase.com>
cc:    Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>,
       <ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org>
Subject:    Re: [ebxml-cppa] [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole




The ebXML negotiation pattern (and any other negotiation pattern)
may have two roles, but the initiator and responder will switch
places for offers and counter-offers.  It's a dialog or  conversation,
not a client-server relationship.

(I know that perspective differs from some of the terms
currently in place, but if so, the terms are wrong.)

-Bob Haugen
----- Original Message -----
From:  Arvola Chan
To: Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala
Cc: Martin W Sachs ; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org ;
ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:32  PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] [ebxml-msg]  authorizedRole

Hima:

In a MultiPartyCollaboration, a BusinessPartnerRole may  perform multiple
initiating roles and responding roles.

Since the 1.1 CPP/A spec is not capable of dealing with  multi-party
collaborations, I am only worrying  about BinaryCollaboration.

In each BinaryCollaboration, there is only one  InitiatingRole and one
RespondingRole.

Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From:  Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala <himagiri@sybase.com>
To:  Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
Cc: Martin  W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>;  ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>;  ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org  <
ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org>
Date:  Monday, December 10, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa]  [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole

One small correction.

fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole don't always have to correspond
to the Initiator and Responder. If a BC has multiple
BusinessTransactionActivities,
intermediate BTAs can have roles  different to that of initiator/responder.
Only criteria is that they  belong to list of Authorized roles specified in
BPSS.

I'm ccing bpss team, cause the schema is missing the AuthorizedRole
element.

In that sense there would be an Element called AuthorizedRoles?
in  the bpss instance.

-hima

Arvola Chan wrote:   In BPSS, a BinaryCollaboration has an  InitiatingRole
and a RespondingRole. A BinaryCollaboration may include one  or more
CollaborationActivities and/or  BusinessTransactionActivities. Each
CollaborationActivity/BusinessTransactionActivity has a fromAuthorizedRole
and a toAuthorizedRole attribute. I believe that the names of the
InitiatingRole and RespondingRole of a BinaryCollaboration must match the
fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole attributes of its component
BusinessTransactionActivities and CollaborationActivities. Anyway,  since
authorizedRole is neither the name of an attribute or element, I  don't
think it should be spelt as one word in section 3.1.1.2. Instead, it
should be spelt as "authorized role" without being in bold or  italics. If
we want to explain what authorized role means, perhaps we  can elaborate
within parenthesis as follows: authorized role  fromAuthorizedRole or
toAuthorizedRole) -Arvola -----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org  <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:24  PM
Subject: [ebxml-cppa]  [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole
 >FYI
>
>
*************************************************************************************


>
>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
>
*************************************************************************************


>---------------------- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on
12/10/2001
>04:23 PM ---------------------------
>
>David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on  12/10/2001 03:42:32 PM
>
>To:    Christopher  Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
>cc:    ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Subject:    [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole
>
>
>
>Chris, in section 3.1.1.2, there is an  attribute/element called
>authorizedRole.
>It is our  convention to bold/italics the names of elements and
attributes,
>even
>if they are not ours.
>
>In CPPA I find  fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole.
>
>Where did this  come from?  Is it an element or attribute?  Should it be
>bold/italics?
>
>Regards,
>
>David.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>