RE: CPP & CPA Followup

[Mark Hale <hale@ajubasolutions.com>]

Joe,

> 1.	Are there any potential problems in dropping the "NN"
> convention? (I
> think there are....)
> 2.	If not, should all of the posted CPPs and CPAs be renamed & edited
> accordingly?

The NN convention was dropped in the table because PartyName/Track/Role were
intended to be business level categorizations for the table purposes only.
This was not supposed to be indicative of the file naming conventions.  If
it is needed by the group, I can align the table with the NN convention.

> 3.	If it is decided that the "NN" suffix (or any equivalent
> differentiator)
> is actually necessary in PartyName, should there also be a unique domain
> name for each PartyName?

Implementors with more than one role, do you want sepearate domain names?
Messages should be separable because the TPAInfo element in the header will
be distinct for each interface and subsequent action.  Please let us know
what is easier for you.

	Thanks,

	Mark



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Baran [mailto:joebaran@extol.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:17 PM
> To: ebXML-poc
> Subject: RE: CPP & CPA Followup
>
>
>
> The set of CPP & CPA samples posted at:
>
> http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/poc/tokyo/
>
> all have the contents of their PartyName (and RolePlayer) elements
> expressed in the format:
>
> companynameNN
>
> where:
>
> companyname ==  PartyName as in the suggested table (as quoted below)
>
> and
>
> NN == one or more of 21,22,31,32, depending on track and role
>
> In addition, the actual xml filenames and the CPAName elements follow a
> similar pattern, e.g.:
>
> in a CPP:
> <CPAName>Extol22 CPP</CPAName>
> in a CPA:
> <CPAName>Netfish21 and Extol22 CPA</CPAName>
>
> Now, the suggested table drops the "NN" part. This is probably
> fine if each
> PartyName plays only one role, but several are playing more than
> one role.
> (e.g., see Netfish in the table below).
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.	Are there any potential problems in dropping the "NN"
> convention? (I
> think there are....)
> 2.	If not, should all of the posted CPPs and CPAs be renamed & edited
> accordingly?
> 3.	If it is decided that the "NN" suffix (or any equivalent
> differentiator)
> is actually necessary in PartyName, should there also be a unique domain
> name for each PartyName?
>
>
> Joe Baran
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark Hale [SMTP:hale@ajubasolutions.com]
> Sent:	Friday, October 27, 2000 2:04 PM
> To:	ebXML-poc
> Subject:	CPP & CPA Followup
>
> <<snip>>
>
> 3.  Here is the first cut at the PartyName/Track/Role/DUNS/DomainName
> table:
>
> Cisco/TPA/Client/2110000000000/cisco.ebxml.com
> Extol/Retail/Seller/3210000000000/extol.ebxml.com
> Fujitsu/Retail/Buyer/4210000000000/fujitsu.ebxml.com
> IBM/Automotive/Supplier/5320000000000/ibm.ebxml.com
> IBM/TPA/Buyer/5110000000000/ibm.ebxml.com
> Interwoven/TPA/Buyer/1110000000000/interwoven.ebxml.com
> IPnet/Automotive/Buyer/6210000000000/ipnet.ebxml.com
> Netfish/Retail/Buyer/7210000000000/netfish.ebxml.com
> Netfish/Retail/Supplier/7220000000000/netfish.ebxml.com
> Netfish/Retail/Hub/7230000000000/netfish.ebxml.com
> Netfish/Automotive/Supplier/7320000000000/netfish.ebxml.com
> Savvion/Retail/Seller/8220000000000/savvion.ebxml.com
> SterlingCommerce/TPA/Registry/9118220000000/sterlingcommerce.ebxml.com
> SUN/TPA/Registry/1511000000000/sun.ebxml.com
> TIE/Retail/Buyer/1021000000000/tie.ebxml.com
> TIE/Retail/Seller/1022000000000/tie.ebxml.com
> Viquity/Retail/Hub/1123000000000/viquity.ebxml.com
> webMethods/Retail/Buyer/1221000000000/webmethods.ebxml.com
> XMLGlobal/TPA/Registry/1311000000000/xmlg.ebxml.com
> XMLSolutions/TPA/Registry/1311000000000/xmls.ebxml.com
>
> <<snip>>
>
>
>