RE: revised requirements

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

Marty,

Should I add multiparty support to phase 2 of the delivery matrix?


Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:34 PM
> To: Hirotaka Hara
> Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: revised requirements
>
>
>
> Hara-san,
>
> In the long run, we should consider multi-party TPAs but I believe that
> this should wait for ebXML phase 2.
>
> In our IBM Research project, we initially had some grammar for multi-party
> TPAs.  We later realized that there are some significant open problems for
> multiparty TPAs.  For example, when party B and Party C exchange messages,
> that affects the state of the conversation.  Therefore, it is likely that
> party A must include the messages between B and C in its
> conversation state
> tracking.  That in turn seems to require extra messages, which may not be
> desirable.  A second (and seemingly opposite) issue is that it
> was believed
> that some of the information that is exchanged between B and C should be
> able to be hidden from A (for example, a discussion of wholesale prices
> between two subcontractors), both in the TPA itself and at run time.  As a
> result of issues like these, we decided to focus on developing the 2-party
> TPA and leaving multiparty TPAs for the future.
>
> One can construct multiparty relationships by combining 2-party TPAs.
> Supply chain is a natural example but combining 2-party TPAs should work
> for any multiparty relationship.  This seems to require additional work by
> the application process.  However, one might consider providing
> function in
> the run-time middleware to assist with the correlations between TPAs.
>
> Regarding multi-party relationships in the Requirements draft, I belive
> that you are referring to item 6 under "The specification shall:".  This
> refers to the use of 2-party TPAs for multiparty relationships.
> If any has
> suggestions for clarifying this point, please speak up.
>
> 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
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
>
>
> Hirotaka Hara <hara@soft.flab.fujitsu.co.jp> on 09/11/2000 06:13:11 AM
>
> To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  Re: revised requirements
>
>
>
>
> Marty,
>
> > Here is the revised requirements document.  It benefits from the few
> > comments I have received plus other improvements.
> > In the next day or so, we will be asked for our input to the ebXML
> > requirements.  It would be helpful if people could review the attached
> and
> > provide comments very soon.
>
> The requirement document seems to focus on the TPA between specific two
> parties. In real business, however, more than two parties are involved
> to do business. We need to deal with multiparty TPAs as you pointed out
> in your presentation.
>
> Do we need a TPA among three roles?  Or do we construct it by combining
> TPAs between two roles?
>
> I think it is an issue we should discuss in the WG. There is a
> description about multi-party business relationships in the requirement
> document. But it is not clear enough for me.
>
> ---------------
>
> Hirotaka HARA, Dr. Eng.
> Senior Researcher
> Software Laboratory
> Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
>
>
>
>
>