Subject: RE: comment on TA specification
I agree with Stefano.
A Party performs at least one role in a CPP. If the CPP identifies more
than one business process, then the Party performs one role in each. In
addition, in a CPP, a Party may perform more than one role in a single
process. For example, the Party may use the same business process as both
a buyer and a seller at different times. Thinking on my feet, I expect
that such a CPP would identify two instances of the process, one in which
the Party is a buyer and the other in which the Party is a seller. Most
likely, a typical CPA would identify one business process and each Party
would play one of the roles in it.
One might also want to convey the thought that an Enterprise may expose
itself as many Parties, each associated with a different CPP.
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
*************************************************************************************
"Stefano POGLIANI" <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 01/18/2001 03:55:35 AM
To: <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>, "Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>
cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>,
"ebXML-Architecture List" <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject: RE: comment on TA specification
Tim,
about your sentence :
>
> "A trading partner (or 'trading party' if you prefer) performs
> one role in a Collaboration Protocol Profile."
>
I do not think that this is right. In a CPP a party can declare to support
many different business processes. In this case, he will be playing a
different role for each business process it supports (at least, nothing
prevents, I guess, that a party plays more than one role in a given BP).
Does this make sense ?
I think that the idea triggered by Marty is about the fact that a given
organization may be choosing to publish more than one CPP; one possible
explanation would be that in a big organization, each department
autonomously defines its own CPP (which can reference multiple BPs)
/Stefano
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au]
> Sent: 18 January 2001 01:02
> To: Duane Nickull
> Cc: Martin W Sachs; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebXML-Architecture List
> Subject: Re: comment on TA specification
>
>
> i agree with marty, the issue of what is (or is not) an
> "organisation/company" is too
> complex and un-necessarily restrictive.
>
> this highlights the need to clarify the use of the term "trading
> partner" (or 'trading
> party' if you prefer).
>
> is it possible that a TP (whatever that stands for!) have a
> single CPP (and potentially
> many CPAs). Maybe each CPP defines what the TP is???
>
> the current glossary leaves this open. might i suggest that this
> is almost self-defining.
>
> "A trading partner (or 'trading party' if you prefer) performs
> one role in a Collaboration
> Protocol Profile."
>
> For example, if K-Mart have a division that deals with
> purchasing goods from SE Asia and
> this group have a defined CPP for contract suppliers and other
> for ad-hoc purchasing, then
> there would be two TPs. One for K-Mart/SE Asia/contract and
> another for K-Mart/SE
> Asia/ad-hoc.
>
> - is that the way the TP team is thinking?
>
>
> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
> > Marty:
> >
> > I can forward this one, especially since you and I have already
> > discussed this in our email.
> >
> > Team:
> >
> > This comment is a valid concern. There will be cases with larger
> > enterprises whereby different divisions of the company may wish to
> > express their own CPP's. Accordingly, this requirement for One CPP
per
> > Company would be prohibitive.
> >
> > I vote we take it out as Marty Suggests.
> >
> > Duane Nickull
> >
> > Martin W Sachs wrote:
> > >
> > > Klaus,
> > >
> > > Please forward to the TA team.
> > >
> > > Line 513-514: The TP team collectively does not remember stating a
> > > requirement of registering only one CPP per trading partner.
> Please remove
> > > this requirement. It is overly restrictive, especially for large
> > > enterprises, which may need to state various combinations and
> permutations
> > > of capabilities for different purposes.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
>
>
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC