RE: latest Version

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM
>David W.,
I saw your post. I believe there is a problem in the flow.
What ever case, "final" steps should be the flows marked
8->9->12, so there is some problem. This is sending a
propsed CPA and perhaps negotiating then doing business.

What ever the problem (or disagreement ?),
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Scott - this is the crux.  There's definately been some terminology
drift here over the last couple of weeks.

Our use of TPP and TPA is obviously different from what 
you are now using -  your detail ->
"I say we just indicate a query to the RegRep for who supports
a specific BusinessCollaboration and which CommercialTransactions
using the advertised CPPs registered by Partners,
and then conduct 8,9,12", leave me wondering on terms and meaning.

What I'd suggest here - since this Fig 1. example is only provided as
a single instance of, and not the be-all-and-end-all of sequences,
that we let this go for now - till we have the Glossary integrated in.

Then - once we've done that - we can re-visit this as an issue - to
align the terminology and context.

I'm suspecting we are both seeing and agreeing to the same thing,
but we're just calling it different things!

Also - for implementors - we have to ensure the boxes are little-endian
when they need to be, to expose the finer interaction paths.

Big-endian boxes are of course easier to draw and agree on!

I'm thinking breakfast cereal here.  If I say:

1) assemble ingredients

2) combine in breakfast bowl

3) eat

it works.  If I go to the 'open refridgerator, open cereal box', level,
we all disagree on sequencing.

However, we need a balance - because 'assemble ingredients'
is not enough detail.

Thanks, DW.