RE: FW: Parties and Partners

[John Yunker <JohnY@EDIFECS.COM>]

Title:

David, here is a whack at 
it...  (my appologies to those in the working groups that may have already 
been over this ground, hazard of coming late to a party)

It seems that we need to enable participation in three types of markets:

Partner Markets: where through either subscribing to a standard partner agreement (e.g. available through some repository/registry, corporate or consortium), or by creating a specific partner agreement, two business partners engage in commercial transactions.

Managed Net Markets: where a for-profit-organization provides a value-add market infrastructure through which business partners agree to engage in commercial transactions.

Open Net Markets: where business partners locate each other through not-for-profit forums/technologies and reference generally accepted agreements (available through some repository/registry, corporate or consortium) to engage in commercial transactions.

Each of these types of markets will require specific attributes in the exchanged business documents, as well as placing requirements on the methods available through Registry/Repository and attributes of the TPA.

I would suggest that there should be a concensus on supporting these models (plus improvements on my definitions), then move towards POC or storyboard representations of each, and analysis of requirements to support each. (out of scope for architecture group perhaps)

Thanks,

John

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:26 PM
To: Murray Maloney; ebxml Archtecture
Subject: Re: FW: Parties and Partners


Message text written by Murray Maloney
>
Thus, 'Market' and 'Party' and helpful terms and concepts that
allow you to talk about ecommerce in language that would be
perfectly understandable to anyone with even a rudimentary
understanding of how the real world actually operates day-to-day.

Are we still far apart?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Murray,

I'm where you are coming from  - the issue is now that this is
not the traditional use of the word market - which conjures up a
completely different mental image.  I certainly don't think of a
Coke Machine as a market - but I see how you get there now!

I like Johns' notes and your replies - that looks closer to
where we want to be.  Qualifying the word market certainly
makes it much clearer, as in DispenserMarket for the Coke
machine.   Then John and your analysis on the attributes is
and needs is instructive to ensure the Architecture works.

The Coke machine is a great example.

Thanks, DW.