Re: Special note for CPP members

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Duane,

I'm glad we are beginning to converge on this.

Regarding:


   The problem many people are starting to see is that Vendor A and vendor
   B need to have a definition of what the correct CPA should look like
   given two CPP's as input.  More than likely,  the two tools will produce
   two different CPAs unless there is a specification or set of rules
   (perhaps in the non normative section as you suggested) to guide the
   vendors.  It is the "same procedures" wording that causes the majority
   of concerns.  What are those "same procedures" and where do I find them
   if I am building a CPA negotion engine?


The key question is whether two different tools will produce EQUIVALENT
CPAs.
If the TP team does its job successfully, it should be quite clear from the
specification what has to be in a given CPA composed from two CPPs.
This is one area where comments from the tool designers directly to the TP
team will help us to get it right.

Differences between equivalent CPAs should be in inconsequential areas like
reordering elements  or attributes whose order doesn't matter.

Remember that the two Parties should be installing identical copies of a
single CPA, not producing separate CPAs from the same pair of CPPs. The
latter is doomed to failure.  Aside from the additional complexities,
unless
both parties install identical copies of a CPA signed by both of them, they
never can be sure that the two copies are truly identical.

Regarding:

   It is the "same procedures" wording that causes the majority
   of concerns.

Where is this discussion of "same procedures"?  I can't find it in either
the current
CPA-CPP specification or the TA specification.  It sounds like a statement
that
needs work.  If you tell me where it is, I will do something about it.

Regarding:

   Should Karl set up a separate list for this subject or should it be a
   thread under the main CPP group?


Any discussion on the composition/negotiation topic needs to be in view of
the whole TP team,
so there is no (if not negative) value to keeping the
composition/negotiation discussion separate.
Remember that the first goal must be to guide the CPP-CPA specification
into being complete
and precise enough  such that any pair of CPPs that specify compatible
function can be
composed into a correct CPA by anyone's tools.

Regards,
Marty


*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/30/2001 02:22:52 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   matt@xmlglobal.com, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Welsh, David"
      <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>, "Bob Haugen (E-mail)"
      <linkage@interaccess.com>, "Brian Hayes (E-mail)"
      <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>, ebXML-StC <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>,
      ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, Brian Eisenberg <BrianE@DataChannel.com>,
      Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>
Subject:  Re: Special note for CPP members



Marty:

Some comments inline:

Martin W Sachs wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
> First and foremost, the place for placing requirements on a team to
develop
> new functionality is the ebXML Requirements specification, not the TA
> specification, so you need to communicate the desire for these
requirements
> to the Requirements team.  The TP section of the TA document thus far is
an
> exposition of the architecture and any words you put in should continue
> that style.

Agreed.

>
> Given any work on negotiation protocol today cannot possibly be in time
for
> ebXML Version 1, since the deadline has already passed, any prescriptive
> words that you put in now about negotiation protocol will be empty, so
> putting anything in will mislead the reader into thinking that the
function
> exists when it doesn't.  The place for prescriptive words is in the
version
> 2 TA specification if ebXML continues to exist after May.
>>>>
This is a good suggestion.
>
> In addition, the whole question of whether it is appropriate to define a
> normative composition and negotiation procedure at all is a major issue
> that needs much wider discussion in ebXML.  Since the very first
standards
> (plumbing parts 100 years ago if memory serves me correctly), standards
> have focused entirely on interoperability and have avoided constraining
> implementations.  There are no interoperability issues in CPA composition
> and negotiation as long as both CPPs conform to the ebXML CPA-CPP
> specification.  Any tool that produces the correct CPA works regardless
of
> whether vendor A's tool uses the same procedures as vendor B's tool.
>>>>
The problem many people are starting to see is that Vendor A and vendor
B need to have a definition of what the correct CPA should look like
given two CPP's as input.  More than likely,  the two tools will produce
two different CPAs unless there is a specification or set of rules
(perhaps in the non normative section as you suggested) to guide the
vendors.  It is the "same procedures" wording that causes the majority
of concerns.  What are those "same procedures" and where do I find them
if I am building a CPA negotion engine?

There is obviously a lot fo work to do in this area still.  The
suggestion to have a small group of interested people participate in an
online discussion is excellent.  Several people from XML Global are
committed to provide input.  I am sure that others are anxious to
contribute as well.  Under your groups leadership, maybe they will be
able to put together more than a few paragraphs for the CPP/CPA spec due
out in May.
>
> If you nonetheless want to put something in now, it should be something
> like this:
>
>    The CPA-CPP specification includes a non-normative appendix that
>    discusses CPA composition and negotiation and includes advice as to
>    composition and negotiation procedures.
>>>>>>>>>

Okay - we will use this wording.


> Also, please spell "Collaboration" correctly (NOT "Collaborative").
Oops - my bad!!!

Should Karl set up a separate list for this subject or should it be a
thread under the main CPP group?

Duane NIckull