RE: revised requirements

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

Dick,

At this point, I would view multiparty messaging as "point to point",
controlled by information in the business protocol layer of the TPA.
Multiparty TPA is thus strictly a TP and BP matter. If I a correct, there
should be no need to have an entry for it in the TRP delivery matrix.

The messging service could get involved if someone identifies a requirement
for multicast in order sto support multiparty TPAs.  If you want to cover
your bases on this one or on multiparty in general, you could add an entry
to phase 2 of the form "identify any messaging requirements on multiparty
TPAs".

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



"Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.com> on 09/11/2000 07:25:56 PM

Please respond to <dick@8760.com>

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Hirotaka Hara"
      <hara@soft.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
cc:   <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: revised requirements



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.
>
>
>
>
>