RE: Collaborations and nesting (TP teleconf 2-28-01)

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

Likewise Jamie, we hashed this out even beyond ebXML scope and V1.0 binary
collab. seem to work in real life for me.
Thanks
Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jbc@lawyer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:55 PM
> To: ebxml-ccbp-analysis@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Collaborations and nesting (TP teleconf 2-28-01)
> 
> 
> For those of you who are following the CPA-BP collaboration 
> dependencies, I
> wanted to pass along these matters from the 2/28 TP conference call. 
> 
> This is one of two messages, one e-mail per topic.   Words in 
> quotes below
> are loosely rather than strictly employed.  Sorry, but I am 
> trying to grope
> towards simple understandings of complex things.  
> 
> Nesting collaborations
> ------------------------------
> 
> The conversations in Vancouver that generated the previously 
> circulated
> 2/15/01 "Simple Negotiation Pattern" also gave us a chance to 
> think more
> about the following two assertions.   A week of discussing 
> them over hotel
> food and beer has increased our confidence level.  (I'm tentatively
> confident it was the discussion, not the beer, that achieved 
> this, but you
> tell me.)  
> 
> (1)  Most multi-party e-business arrangements of current 
> interest to us can
> be logically built up from atomistic bilateral transactions, 
> as long as we
> can nest collaborations.  
> 
>       (Comment:  I was particularly pleased to see that Bill 
> McCarthy's REA
> constraints, particularly duality, are parallel to applicable legal
> enforcement and interpretation constraints.  Both seem to validate the
> foregoing conclusion.)
> 
> (2)  The necessary conditional relationships and transitions between
> transactions are fairly simple, and can be included in some 
> form in 1.0.  
> 
>      (Comment:   Just exactly how "simple" is still up for 
> grabs, but we
> seem likely to get some level of functionality included.)
> 
> Given (1) and (2), I wanted to confirm whether the CPA/CPP 
> Specification
> would have any problem with:
> 
> *  Infinite nesting of collaborations
> *  A nested collaboration where all the CPAs are at the "low" 
> bilateral
> level, and no CPA directly associated with the "high" level composite
> collaboration.  
> *  A nested collaboration where the only CPAs is at the 
> "high" composite
> level, so there's no separate CPA associated with each "low" 
> level binary
> transaction, other than by reference to the "high" level one.
> 
> So I asked the TP group.  Marty's team was patient in talking 
> this over
> with me yesterday, and confirmed that they see no problems 
> with the first
> two, under their expected ver 1.0 spec.   The third may take some more
> discussion.  
>  
> Obviously there are multi-party limitations, as ver 1.0 CPAs 
> can only be
> bilateral;  and there are some logical issues, such as the 
> possibility of
> overlapping CPAs in a composite collaboration.    Jamie
> 
> James Bryce Clark
> Spolin Silverman & Cohen LLP 
> 310 586 2404    jbc@lawyer.com
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: 
> ebxml-ccbp-analysis-request@lists.ebxml.org
>