[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases
Farrukh I agree that we need to involve the TP and the reg/rep teams. I know that there are representatives of the TP team on the transport list (e.g. Marty and me), but is there a representative of the Reg/Reg team? If there is can they send an email to the list and let us know if we can forward the use case to the Reg/Rep team. David -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 1:00 PM To: David Burdett Cc: 'Moberg, Dale'; 'Mark CRAWFORD'; mwsachs@us.ibm.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org Subject: Re: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases I agree that the dynamic discovery of trading partners and dynamically assembling a TPA on the fly is a very real use case, though in the advanced category. To properly address this I think we need to involve both the TPA and reg/rep teams. There has been some discussion in POC on whether this may be a candidate for the Tokyo POC. -- Regards, Farrukh David Burdett wrote: > I agree with Dale especially where he says ... "Discovery _may_ involve > certain "bootstrap" issues that impact what elements are mandatory within a > header." > > Particularly I think that there is a use case where there is no prior > *direct*" contact between two parties before one of those parties sends the > other an ebXML compliant message. In this case the party sending the message > needs to be able to include, or refer to, information about themselves **in > the message**. This is described in the second use case I put forward. The > current version of of the Message Header does not allow this type of > interaction. I think it must though since it is a very common style of doing > eCommerce that is being used right now as I described in an email earlier > today subject: "Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases", time: > "Fri 08/25/2000 9:22 AM" > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Moberg, Dale [mailto:Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 6:47 AM > To: 'Mark CRAWFORD'; mwsachs@us.ibm.com > Cc: David Burdett; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: RE: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases > > I cannot speak for the others on why this discussion > is taking place but I have two motivations for > trying to find out about discovery methods > within ebXML. > > First, the ebXML header and message documents > are currently assuming that every ebXML message > has a header. Discovery requests are one proposed > type of ebXML message. Discovery _may_ involve > certain "bootstrap" issues that impact what > elements are mandatory within a header. So it is > important to understand the scope of > discovery requests and how they are proposed to > work. > > Second the POC group is considering checking > out the functionality of the registry and > discovery requests in the next round. So > requirements sufficiently definite to assist > implementation were needed yesterday :-) > Since you (Mark C.) indicate that these > discussions are completed or near completed > by other working groups, I would very > much appreciate receiving some references > to the core documents that the POC group > can read. I for one am not interested > in any turf war and am happy to build > on what has been thought through already. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark CRAWFORD [mailto:mcrawfor@lmi.org] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 6:52 AM > To: mwsachs@us.ibm.com; Moberg, Dale > Cc: david.burdett@commerceone.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: Re:RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases > > I am not sure why this discussion is taking place. The purpose of this > group is > not to determine the components of ebXML, nor its basic requirements. The > basic > requirements are documented, and Architecture, Business Process, and R&R are > well down the path on the discovery issue. > > Mark > Mark Crawford > Research Fellow > E-business Strategies > ______ > LMI Logistics Management Institute > 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805 > (703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7518 > mcrawfor@lmi.org > http://www.lmi.org > "Opportunity is what you make of it" > > ____________________Reply Separator____________________ > Subject: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases > Author: <mwsachs@us.ibm.com> > Date: 8/24/00 6:09 PM > > The discovery capability will be important to spontaneous e-commerce, but > it should not be required by ebXML. Another scenario is that > representatives of the two partners sit together, agree on the application > process and jointly compose a TPA containing the information they must know > about each other. > > 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 > **************************************************************************** > **** > ***** > > "Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com> on 08/23/2000 11:48:18 AM > > To: "'David Burdett'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "EbXML Trading > Partner (E-mail)" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org> > cc: > Subject: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases > > >(Dave Burdett) Assumptions > >>Assumption 1 - Each party must know sufficient information about each > other that they can send each > >>other messages that each will be able to successfully process. > >>This assumption is illustrated in the diagram below > >> that shows the "end state" of the discovery process. > >>[omitted] > > 1. Do the trading parties both need to be involved in discovery? > It might be possible to consult a clearinghouse with searches > over "stainless steel ball bearing supplier adhering to specifications > MIL-STD 322332" and proceed to obtain or negotiate a TPA. What kind > of query messages are allowed for discovery? Is it to be hard-wired > into the protocol that it would be necessary to know the contact URL > for a specific trading partner? Will discovery of candidate trading > partners by categories of goods/services be supported? Can this > discovery then itself supply references to contact URLs for negotiatiated > TPAs, template TPAs (take it or leave it TPAs), and so on. In general > what kinds of discovery services will be available? Might additional > parties be involved in the TPA setup (legal reviewers, financial reviewers, > business strategists, ...) so that there is a workflow component to a > negotiated TPA setup? > > >>Assumption 2 - The method by which a party discovers > information about another party is immaterial. > 1. Some methods may be made available to "the public at > large"; other methods might be reserved to entities > fulfilling some special condition (certified by some > financial agency or whatnot) I am not certain what > this assumption really is trying to indicate. Here are some guesses: > that however one arrives at a TPA, once the TPA is in place, > the TPA governs the business and ebxml processes. > Or possibly, parties may choose to divulge information about > themselves through a third party or not. Whatever they choose as > policy here does not make a difference in how the discovery > process works. (I think this might well be false, though.) > At any rate, I am uncertain what this assumption is really saying, > so I would like to see it restated somehow. > > >> If a first party wants to send a message to > a second party all they need to know is: > · the types of process that the second party supports > and the specifications that they follow > 1.. I take it that this list is a list of prior knowledge > that is a prerequisite for discovery Actually I would > think that at least some discovery processes would make > very minimal demands on what needs to be known. So I am > unclear why it should be assumed that the first party needs > to know in advance what specifications and types of business(?) > processes are supported by the second party. This needs some > explanation before I would buy in. Wouldn't these data items > be things we might want to discover? > > · the transport/data communications that should be used to send a > message to the second party > 1. Again, why wouldn't this be something that we are trying to discover? > > · whether or not the second party will accept the message from the > first party > > I don't think this would be good to require. Leave the > "listening ports" unconstrained for at least submitting > the request and then allow there to be a response to say > that authorization is needed to continue. Here I assume that > the message to be accepted is the "ebXML discovery" message. > Otherwise, why wouldn't this be something that we are trying to discover? > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burdett [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:36 PM > To: EbXML Trading Partner (E-mail); ebXML Transport (E-mail) > Subject: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases > > Folks > > A couple of use cases for the TP group that I am also copying to the > Transport Group. Do folks these these use cases are reasonable? > > David > <<Party Discovery Use Cases 01.doc>> > > Product Management, CommerceOne > 4400 Rosewood Drive 3rd Fl, Bldg 4, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA > Tel: +1 (925) 520 4422 (also voicemail); Pager: +1 (888) 936 9599 > mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC