RE: updated requirements specification

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

David,

Absolutely true.  Now, how do we get a consensus on which word to use?

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 10/19/2000 08:52:22 PM

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



Marty

In your comments you said that a "transaction" is ... an "exchange of
documents".

However we also have in your document that a party is "an entity such as a
company, department, organization or individual that can generate, receive
or relay Documents" and that a partner is "a Party that can engage in
Transactions [i.e an exchange of documents" with another Partner".

Given that a partner is someone with whom you can exchange documents and a
party is someone who can send or receive documents I really don't see any
substantive difference in meaning.

Regards

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:22 AM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; dan@vcheq.com
Subject: RE: updated requirements specification



David,

The appended contains some very good suggestions.

Here are my replies.

Regards,
Marty

(See attached file: TP Definitions MWS Resp.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
****************************************************************************

*********



"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
****************************************************************************


*********