Substitution (was) my communication with CPP team

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

At 12:42 PM 6/29/01, you wrote:

>1. Use of the 'substitution' capability. What I mean by that is that a CPA
>could 'substitute' parts of a BP by explicit agreement by the two parties.
>They need a way to express such a substitution.

My thanks to Karsten for pointing this issue out.  A similar issue came up, 
briefly, in March or April in Marty Sachs' old "TPA" group.  I think this 
is a hugely important issue -- the extent to which trading partners and 
perhaps third parties can customize, or conversely rely (unseen) on the 
business process integrity, of a given defined transaction, and the extent 
to which it must be reflected or picked up somehow in artifacts derived 
from the CPA.

I plan to follow this and probably kibitz loudly in the OASIS CPPA 
group.  It belongs there, not here, although it is a strong dependency of 
BP upon the CPA.  Just wanted to mention it "here" (BP) by way of FYI.

,  Pe mgI mention it here only because there nmay be other BP people who d 
can CPPA c imilar question I thikn it