[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC