RE: Minutes of today's conference call.

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

I completely agree with Dale.  I believe that the words I am putting into
the update of the Requirements document will express his view. I'm sure
someone will comment if I miss the mark here.

The idea is not to extract the original PPs from the PA.  That would be
impossible because in creating a PA from two PPs information related to the
capabilities not used in this PA are lost unless they are preserved in
comment tags, which I don't think we want to do.  The idea that I
understood in the suggestion was to take an existing PA (perhaps manually
created without PPs) and extract from it PPs which reflect only the
information in that PA.  Such a PP could be used in creating essentially
the same PA with a different partner. In our IBM Research project, we do
essentially the same thing by feeding an existing PA into our authoring
tool to use as a model for a new one.


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 10/05/2000 09:17:23 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: Minutes of today's conference call.



>Look at #4 (pg 3).
> Should be possible to automatically extract a
>PA from a PP.
[ issue here was extracting PPs from PA-- hope I
didn't transpose these when speaking]
>Dale: not sure this will be a good thing.  What if just one
>PA of a PP is agreed to?  Requirement to retrieve original PP is overly
>strong. What if it's just to extract PA from a PP?  OK.

I would like to clarify what I was concerned with
on the PP extraction from a PA. Because a PA may
be formed from subsets of the two underlying PPs,
(or because I think this should be possible),
it is overly restrictive to require that the original
PPs be extractable from a PA. What is OK, I think,
is that some PP or other be extractable from a PA.
I reserve complete agreement until I see the procedure
for doing this. I think the roles of the Ps in the PA
will be clear so we could tell which part of a BP/CP
the Ps advertise in their PPs. Marty could probably clarify
this for us for the current documents we are initially
considering.

I always think of the PPs as really capability inventories,
and the actual agreement is really on what real delivery
channels will suffice to "deploy" the BP. Granted that may be a bit
simplistic, but it helps me orient myself. The situation
will be common that one Party (a big hub kind of node) will
have a lot of capabilities (in comms, security,  BPs, and so on)
while SME nodes will have quite restricted capabilities and interests
(can I get that in a spreadsheet or fax?...) If things emerge
so that some capabilities are outsourced, then some d. channels
will really be intermediary proxy capabilities. I think we
should prepare for this sort of complexity in phase 1, with
the details by phase 2.