[Fwd: Trading Partner or Party - What's in a name]

[duane <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Colin:

Here is some more work for you to commence on ;-)

THe rest of the TA team - maybe let's all take a look at these and give
Colin a helping hand.  He has undertaken this very hefty job.

I have some comments on the new v 0.8 doc which we need to discuss on
our next call.

Anders - can you please post the schedule for calls to the list but use
real dates instead of week 34.6 etc.  ;-)

THanks dude!!

Duane

---

• From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>
• To: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
• Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:24:38 +0800

i agree the glossary has been dearly needed.  under the revised authorities i beleive this
is now a TA document and hence your 'baby'.

i am attaching the latest Word copy (from which i generated the PDF file) of the ebXML
glossary(version 1.1).  it includes some format correcting but no content changes since the
one on the web site.

also, at san jose i was given a UMM glossary which may be useful for reconciling the UML
terminology.(also attached).

w.r.t. the consensus issue, this is going to be tricky.  in the Technical Coord group we
side-stepped that by saying we would not develop content - each team should do their own.
this only works where there is obviously no overlap.  from this thread it is clear there
may be many of these.  someone, somewhere has to be the 'Editor' and say yes/no to the
synonyms and homonyms.  consensus will take too long, if ever, to reach.  may the TA team
could act as something like an editting council and within your group make the tough calls.

- just in case you have nothing else to do :-)


Duane Nickull wrote:

> Names and conventions
>
> In response to the issues of what to call a "party" or "trading
> Partner", please wait until the TA glossary is published then make
> formal comments to our list serve.  There are instances where we have
> wasted valuable time changing names, changing, back, then changing a
> third time to appease grammar mongers.  I realize this process will be
> vital once the final specifications are done but for the time being, we
> all know what we are semantically referring to.  In the future,  these
> issues must be reached by consensus.
>
> TA has a huge backlog of technical issues to concentrate on.
>
> Duane Nickull
>
> mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > I always thought of a party as a party to a contract and a partner as
> > someone doing business with someone else.  They are almost synonymous in
> > our context.
> >
> > I might mention that a month or so ago, my IBM group hosted a visit from a
> > Yale professor and a Yale visitor who are members of legalXML.  They had
> > seen tpaML and were very interested in it as a way of incorporating
> > technical specifications into a contract formulated as an XML document.
> >
> > 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
> > *************************************************************************************
> >
> > David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 08/21/2000
> > 03:19:09 PM
> >
> > To:   David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> > cc:   ebxml transport <ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org>, Duane Nickull
> >       <Duane@xmlglobal.com>, Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>
> > Subject:  RE: Trading Partner or Party - What's in a name
> >
> > Message text written by David Burdett
> > >
> > I agree with putting them both in the glossary.
> >
> > How, though, do we decide where they are most applicable?
> >
> > David
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > Probably by eliminating when they are in-applicable!?
> >
> > Now we have a lawyer on the team - we probably have to consult
> > council as well, and decide if the council is a party or a TP, or if
> > there is a conflict of interest and then we can't do either - but we
> > can decide its an object.
> >
> > Only lawyers would sue an object; TRP just transports them, one time,
> > one way!
> >
> > DW.

--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

ebXML-Glossary1.1.doc

UMM_Glossaryr1.doc

begin:vcard 
n:McGrath;Tim
tel;pager:+61(0)299633829
tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
tel;fax:+61(0)893352142
tel;work:+61(0)893352228
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au 
x-mozilla-cpt:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard

---