Vote: Sterling and comment on Clarification on Business Process esand their payloads

["Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com>]

Sterling votes Yes on the direction for Track 1 and abstains
on Tracks 2 and 3 (not doing for Tokyo)

What Mark proposes to do for Track 1 is very much appreciated.
The actor models given so far need to be tied to the Service Request
and Responses for Registry/TPA functionality found in the RegRep 
services spec.

For example, the TPP register process needs a 3 part multipart/related
in the request. (First one for this forum, I think.)
Is that what everyone involved plans to do?
Will a manifest be included in ebXML header?
And so on.

Also, I do not see a spec explaining how the actual formation of a 
TPA from the TPPs occurs. The swim lanes show that happening "buyer"
side (BP initiator side.) I actually think it is premature
to try to do TPA formation for Tokyo, given that the first TP
WG f2f is later this week.

Registry providers do not typically
provide the TPA formation function, as I understand it.
If so, the role assignment chart for TPA
formation should omit Sterling from the TPA formation role.

Just how many services the RegRep provider is offering
needs to be nailed down next week too. The classification
and discovery machinery seems to be unclear 
in the scope of effort required and that makes
me unconfortable about committing to supply by Tokyo.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hale [mailto:hale@ajubasolutions.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 7:13 PM
> To: ebXML-poc
> Subject: Clarification on Business Processes and their payloads
> 
> 
> POC,
> 
> I wanted to clarify my work in organizing the payloads for 
> the POC.  As you
> know, we have three tracks each with a business process.  In 
> turn, each
> business process is represented by a sequence diagram (or 
> conversation)
> noted in the proposal.  Here is a summary:
> 
> 	Track 1:  TP Formation
> 		BP:  TP Formation
> 	Track 2:  Retail
> 		BP:  Item Alignment
> 		BP:  Purchase Order
> 	Track 3:  Automotive
> 		BP:  Materials Management
> 
> At each step in the conversation is a payload (Order, Acecptance, Ack,
> etc.).  You have seen traffic concerning my working with 
> GCI/AIAG in getting
> the payload DTDs for Track 2 & 3.  XML examples have been 
> created as well.
> That data has been inserted into the POC draft proposal and 
> an electronic
> version will be made to POC participants within the next few 
> days. Track 2 &
> 3 are complete with the exception of Ack's for Track 3.  In 
> both tracks,
> payloads were modified by me in order to fulfill an implementable
> conversation for POC in the Tokyo timeframe.  Changes were 
> fed back to their
> respective organizations.  Most of the changes were done to accomodate
> Ack's.
> 
> I began work on Track 1 late in the game resulting in some 
> confusion in the
> manner in which it was presented in the proposal.  My intent 
> is to organize
> the payloads corresponding to the TP Formation conversation 
> in Track 1 in a
> manner similar to Track 2 & 3.  Hence you will see a PP and 
> PA dtd in the
> draft sent out.  After speaking today with Farrukh, I 
> realized that this
> should be better aligned with the tpaML DTD and I am working 
> to do that in
> the next few days.  When I do this, you will see PP and PA 
> examples with the
> single tpaML DTD.  Similar to Track 2 & 3, any modifications 
> that are done
> for the conversation will be returned to the respective 
> groups for approval.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 
> 	Mark
> 
>