RE: spec schema sample for POC + issues

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

Hi Nita,
What it's called usually depends to a large part on how the business model
actually works; economic committments & economic events & physical
deliveries. (REA like stuff)

From the picture itself, it really looks like a **NetMarket business model
with payment settlement services** rather than a "drop ship"/"customer
direct" business model (for example in a retail environment with the
physical exchange of goods ).

From the picture, it need to be more clear what parties are actually engaged
in the true business transaction.
 
On the surface it looks like the Supplier is engaging in the business
relationship with the Customer, and the NetMarket is acting as a
facilitator/broker ? (for example if you want to sell me a book and I write
you a check, the deal is still between you and I where we don't acknowledge
that the Bank whose check I used is either the seller or the buyer OR
another way to put it, the NetMarket never assumes legal ownership/nor
liabilities ever for the product/service between the Seller and the Buyer).
Also another way to test this out would be to look at the use case for
customer returns and refunds in relation to the flow of goods or services
and title of ownership.

I'm just guessing the NetMarket will charge a commission to both the buyer
and the seller for 'discovery' on the NetMarket ?

Do you have more specific details as to what the business scenario embodies,
so it can actually be modeled. 
(ie. let's test the BP requirements gathering stuff we've been talking about
all these months !!!) 

From the BOM/business requirments, we can frame the business context to
better explain the operating business model for the spectators outside the
POC. 
By itself, this way, it looks to be more of a series of business
documents/transactions (simply) chained together. 

Dave




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharma, Nita [mailto:nsharma@netfish.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:51 PM
> To: 'Karsten Riemer'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org;
> ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: spec schema sample for POC + issues
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this is the business scenario that has been proposed today 
> for the Vienna
> POC. It has more details that Sig will be putting together. 
> So in case of
> any feedback/issues/comments we require to identify them ASAP. We can
> discuss this during the conf call tomorrow.
> 
> The spec schema will now require to reflect these changes and 
> not sure if we
> call it a dropship scenario
> 
> Cheers
> 
> - Nita
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:13 AM
> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: spec schema sample for POC + issues
> 
> 
> As discussed in yesterday's BP/CC I have created a draft of a 
> spec schema
> sample for the "DropShip" business process that is being 
> proposed for the
> POC.
> The POC meeting is happening today, so it is likely that the 
> flow or content
> will change. 
> This e-mail is more to describe issues/questions I came 
> across while writing
> the .xml
> 
> I started with the attached (dropship7) document from the 
> analysis group,
> and
> mapped as closely as I could to the table specifying the binary
> collaborations, transactions, and roles. The result is attached
> dropshipSamples.xml. (For POC the current thinking is to skip 
> the "Ship
> Goods"
> collaboration so I didn't do that one)
> 
> Here are the issues/questions I came across:
> 
> 1.  Four out of the six binary collaborations are single 
> transaction. Under
> spec schema v0.99 I have to create a separate binary 
> collaboration for each
> transaction. There are duplicated attributes at the 
> BinaryCollaboration and
> BusinessTransaction levels, and it is unclear for a single transaction
> collaboration which level is most relevant to use 
> (beginsWhen, endsWhen,
> requires, resultsIn)
> 
> 2.  The Product Fulfillment binary collaboration expects to 
> use different
> role
> names for each of its two transactions. Under spec schema 
> v0.99 role names
> must be the same for all transactions within a binary collaboration.
> 
> 3.  The Inventory Management binary collaboration contains 
> two alternative
> ways of obtaining an inventory report, one by request, and 
> one unsolicited.
> In
> either case the content and structure of the report 
> document(s) is the same.
> Under spec schema v0.99 I have to define separate 
> BusinessTransactions for
> the
> two alternate ways, each with its own unique DocumentFlow. 
> (This is the same
> issue as issue # 116 by William Kammerer)
> 
> 4.  As per 1. above, you cannot under v0.99 create a CPP or CPA that
> declares
> support for a single transaction, or a single document flow, 
> unless you
> create
> a binary collaboration containing that transaction.
> 
> These three issues would be addressed if we adopted my 
> proposal as per issue
> #124, and it would also make us more compatible with current 
> RosettaNet
> thinking and upcoming OMG/EDOC specification. I attach my 
> original e-mail
> with
> that proposal.
> 
> thanks,
> -karsten
> 
> 
>