OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [ebxml-dev] about cpp/a negotiation

Let me offer a few very simple comments, and then more qualified experts may wish to speak up. 

Automated or sophisticated negotiation is not needed to initiate ebXML transactions.   One partner may offer a CPP, or a sheaf of CPPs, and the other may simply accede to one (in a ebXML message) and by doing so promote it to a CPA that will bind the both of them.  The 1.0 specification anticipates this.

However, some likely will wish to conduct fully automated negotiations of a CPA between strangers.  The two-party method for doing so is being articulated by a separate 'negotiation' subteam of the ebXML CPPA team.   You might want to read the archives of their separate mailing list (at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa-negot/) to learn more of their work.

Also, many users may not wish to do much "re-configuration" within a specific transaction set after a CPA is fully negotiated.  Here is the reason.   There are risks associated with the conduct of a multi-step automated transaction.  We expect that parties will wish to evaluate, and fix, those risks before running the transaction, by interrogating the proposed CPA (and the business transactions referenced in its process-specification).    Once a satisfactory set of channels, signals, time-out rules and business rules have been set, the parties are free to run the process without further human intervention, because they are satisfied with the finite, known set of outcomes.   A post-CPA change to the "configuration" that changes the set of possible outcomes, or the risks that the parties elected to assume, might make the set of transactions less attractive, less automatable, or more erratic to its users. 

As to saving CPPA parameters, yes, I expect that most parties would save a persistent copy of any CPA to which they have agreed, in a manner that allows demonstrably accurate reproduction of the original artifact.  This is for exactly the same reason that you save a signed paper contract.   It is part of the evidence you will need in order to prove that you have a binding deal, and what the terms of that deal are.  I will leave to others the question of whether a database is the right medium.

Good luck and best regards   Jamie Clark

~ James Bryce Clark   
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
~ Chair, American Bar Association Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce  
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com    jbc@lawyer.com
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.

Dear all,
We have some questions about the implementation of CPP/A. In the specification, there are no remarks for automated negotiation and configurations of CPA. We want to implement the ebXML CPP/A standards for defining business profiles and the conditions that allow integration between businesses. If we implement automated CPA negotiation tool, it will be provided to create a CPA from two given CPP documents.
Our questions are:  How can be negotiation done? Is CPA document itself modified or ití»s just transferred using MSH?
After negotiation, How can we configure CPA parameters? Where? Does every party have to save configuration file in ití»s own DB? Are there any API for CPP/A? I came across JSR 157 ebXML CPP/A APIs for Java but ití»s not available I guess.
Anyone else done this and have some "shareable" resources/info.artificts that we might be able to reuse?
Thanks in advance.
Hyoung-Uk, Moon
B2BI Development Team
T.82-31-779-2867  F.82-31-779-2709
276-2,Seohyeon-dong, Bundang-gu, Seonganam-si,
Kyeonggi-do 463-775, Korea

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC