[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Collaborations and nesting (TP teleconf 2-28-01)
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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC