RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

This good news Marty, it means that we can now focus on what information
needs to be shared and then work out the two ways (TPA agreed beforehand)
and Party Profile Info (sent on the fly in the header) by which it can be
communicated.

Davd

-----Original Message-----
From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:52 AM
To: David Burdett
Cc: Moberg, Dale; EbXML Trading Partner (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases


David,

I agree with both points.

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



David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 08/28/2000 05:15:13 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com>, "EbXML Trading Partner
      (E-mail)" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases



Marty

>>>I think we are in a "what's in a name" discussion about the word
"required"<<<

Not quite. What I'm trying to come to some agreement/acceptance on (at some
length) is the following two statements:

1. A Trading Partner Agreement, negotiated between two parties is an option
when using ebXML, as
2. Trading Partner (or Party) Profile information may be sent in a message
header.

The use cases in my email on "Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use
Cases" provide more . See ...

http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00291.html

If we can get acceptance that these use cases ones that we should (or
should
not) support, then we can move on.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 1:58 PM
To: David Burdett
Cc: Moberg, Dale; EbXML Trading Partner (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases


David,

I think we are in a "what's in a name" discussion about the word
"required".

Discovery is very important and ebXML should continue working toward a
specification.

My only point is that ebXML should not require that its discovery
specification be used before an exchange can commence using the BP and TRP
specifications.  This is consistent with the ebXML position that I have
seen (in the requirements document, I think), that the various ebXML
specifications should be able to be used either individually or as a
package.

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

*********



David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 08/25/2000 12:22:04 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Moberg, Dale"
      <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com>
cc:   "EbXML Trading Partner (E-mail)" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases



Marty

You said ...

>>>The discovery capability will be important to spontaneous e-commerce,
but
it should not be required by ebXML.<<<

Why?

I am *not* suggesting that a discovery about another partner leading to
spontaneous eCommerce is the *only* way to do eCommerce. In the real world
though spontaneous eCommerce happens *all* the time, you read an ad in a
trade magazine and send in a PO to the company without any prior contact -
are we seriously saying that we are not going to allow the equivalent of
this in eCommerce.

So Marty, please justify your statement.

I also agree, though, that your second scenario is a perfectly valid
*alternative* way of doing business - we just *musn't* limit eCommerce to
just this type of interaction IMO.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:09 PM
To: Moberg, Dale
Cc: David Burdett; EbXML Trading Partner (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Trading Partner/Party Discovery/Agreement Use Cases


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