RE: TP teleconference minutes - Feb. 28, 2001

[James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>]

At 01:18 AM Friday Mar 02 2001, Stefano POGLIANI wrote:
> I am sorry I did not attend the conf call and, thus, did not comment on 
> this during it. I disagree on the sentence :
>
>» 2. Multi-party collaborations can always be reduced to sets of binary
>» collaborations, each with a separate CPA
>
> I agree that, for V1, we assume that this is possible. But I do not think
> that this would account any general situation.
>
> /stefano

Stefano, you're right, this is only under discussion as a version 1.0
constraint for now.  One might imagine that we will eventually wish to
support (1) more sophisticated modeling and (2) transactions that might
require that sophistication.  

However, a very tentative consideration of applicable theoretical
principles of law and accounting suggests that all, or virtually all,
multiparty economic relationships  c a n  be built up from these simple
bilateral pairs.  This is perhaps much more interesting to law and
accounting professionals than to e-commerce coders:   which may explain why
Bill McCarthy and I were occasionally off muttering at each other with
glazed eyes in Vancouver.  Sorry we missed you there.  But our preliminary
exploration of the issue  d o e s  make me feel pretty good about the
proposed 1.0 constraint.

In turn, a constraint to  v e r y   s i m p l e  collaboration assembly
makes me feel pretty good about rolling something out that is useful,
feasible and widely understandable within the severe time-constraints of BP
ver 1.0. 

Best regards   Jamie Clark

James Bryce Clark
Spolin Silverman & Cohen LLP 
310 586 2404    jbc@lawyer.com