RE: updated requirements specification

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

David,

The only thing attached to your note was the definition list.  The
partner-requirements document didn't come through to me.  However if you
were really sending the one from before the F2F, that's not the operative
version now.  Your email is referring to the newest version, however.

It's a bit hard to avoid circularity without having to put the definitions
list before the introduction.  I did try to minimize circularity in the
revised introduction. Further suggestions are welcome.

You have some good suggestions in the definitions list.  However in the
interest of moving forward I still want to hold them to apply later and
move the approval process forward (consensus of the F2F) with what came out
of the F2F.

As far as "transaction" goes, my personal intent is to use it only in a
colloquial sense, not in a formal sense, especially since BP seems to use
the word "commercial transaction" to mean one exchange of messages, which
often does not correspond to  a unit of business.  If we can find a
colloquial word to use the way that "transaction" is used in the latest
requirements spec, let's put that on the list of things to change after
Tokyo.

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



"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 10/18/2000 01:00:56 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:   dan@vcheq.com
Subject:  RE: updated requirements specification



I know that ...
a) I raised the issue about the confusion in terminology between Party and
Partner, and
b) I couldn't make the F2F to suggest that we stay with Party
... but the current requirements document is very wooly on definitions.
Specifically  it says in items 3 and 4 ...

>>>4.     Party. A Party is an entity such as a company, department,
organization or individual that can generate, receive or relay Documents.
5.   Partner. A Partner is a Party that can engage in transactions with
another Partner. <<<

What is not defined anywhere as far as I can see is what is meant by
"transactions". The word is used in the opening paragraph as in ...

>>>a Trading Partner is an entity that engages in commercial transactions
with other Trading Partners<<<

One of the cardinal rules, IMO, of definitions is that they should be
cumulative, i.e. you don't use a term until you have defined it. The
current
document is circular in that Collaborative Process uses CPA before we've
defined it, yet CPA relies on a definition of Collaborative Protocol that
depends on a definition of Collaborative Process.

This means that the definitions should be more along the lines of the
attached document.

Thoughts?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 2:39 PM
To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: dan@vcheq.com
Subject: updated requirements specification


Attached is our partner-requirements specification, updated per the
discussion at last weeks Face to Face meeting (described in the minutes).
As previously mentioned, Daniel Ling will immediately convert the format to
the official ebXML format and I will then begin the approval process.

This does not cut off discussion but it does assure that we have this
specification on the path to approval for the Tokyo meeting.  The results
of discussion of this version will be applied to a later version.

I have not marked the changes.  Last week's discussion resulted in many
small changes and a few significant ones.  It needs to be reviewed in full.
One particular change is that the term "Trading-Partner Agreement" is
re-introduced per the request of Klaus Naujok. A Trading-Partner Agreement
includes a Collaboration Protocol Agreement and higher-level business
information.

Regards,
Marty

(See attached file: partner-requirements.doc)

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

*********

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

*********