RE: IIC 10/17/2005: CPA Profile (Comments)

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Title: RE: IIC 10/17/2005: CPA Profile (Comments)

Monica:

I will upload soon V0.7 where I address, I believe, some of your comments as discussed in meeting.
The following remains to be taken care of - though not convinced we need to:

2. In the Notes section, suggest you indicate that role changes will be
supported in a latter version (via the definition of another
collaboration role). What this entails is that an abstract partner
assumes many roles within a process and as specified in a CPA. For
example, in negotiation, a buyer may be a requester and responder given
whether he is providing an offer or counter offer.

<JD> isn't that taken care of in Party Info table where such party would list all the roles it can take?

3. In Notes Section or with Business Transaction Characteristics (i.e.
tp:timeToPerform), suggest you indicate this relates to the business
transaction activity rather than the business collaboration as whole
(verify with Moberg and Schlegel).

<JD> isn't that obvious per the parent element "Business Transaction"? I added a clarification note, though, in 3.3.1.

Cheers,
Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:58 AM
To: iic
Cc: Jacques Durand
Subject: IIC 10/17/2005: CPA Profile (Comments)

Jacques,
CPA profile comments:

3.2.1
1. In the Notes section, suggest you relate the conversation concurrency
limits to whether or not it is allowed in the process specification.
Implementer's hint

3.4.1
1. uuid and nameID are not the same in ebBP (ebXML BPSS) so reference
should be to uuid only.
2. In the Notes section, suggest you indicate that role changes will be
supported in a latter version (via the definition of another
collaboration role). What this entails is that an abstract partner
assumes many roles within a process and as specified in a CPA. For
example, in negotiation, a buyer may be a requester and responder given
whether he is providing an offer or counter offer.
3. In Notes Section or with Business Transaction Characteristics (i.e.
tp:timeToPerform), suggest you indicate this relates to the business
transaction activity rather than the business collaboration as whole
(verify with Moberg and Schlegel).

3.5.1
1. May need to specify that a default channel must be specified to
handle acknowledgements, status messages, errors, etc.

General
1. May need to discuss to what extent process specification override is
assumed in CPA. This question is more pervasive than CPA v2.0.
2. Some of these comments may be handled at the end when you discuss
rationalization between messaging, profile and process in Section 4
(operational profile).

Thanks.