Subject: Re: CPA composition from multi-role CPPs
"Moberg, Dale" wrote: Dale: Can you please clarify this sentence: > 2. preference on docexch, when more that one possible, and only one to be > used for simplicity. Are you talking about the method for exchanging the document or the actual business data itself. If it is the business data itself, I think that the correct procedure for CPA terms is that the requesting company MUST agreee to the data requirements of the Receiving company. Please allow me to explain: A company published their capabilities in their CPP. One of their capabilities MAY be to provide XML to XML (or other formats) transformation. If they only have a place to publish what businesss information they need (eg. - documentRequired="http://www.xcbl.org/docs/xCBL3_0-invoice.dtd" it must be assumed <IMHO> that any data transformation must be done by the requesting company before the data is sent. THe Requesting company knows that they can (or can't) transform their own data (eg. an VISA XML invoice) into the required data specification. THe receiving company would have to be queried to ask if they have that caability. This would be innefficient but may be a possible last step to be able to complete an automated transaction sequence. Sorry for all the ramblings lately - looks like I am sort of joining the TP Group ;-) Duane Nickull > 3. security preferences (key strength, trust anchors, CRL check intervals, > etc etc) > 4. to (n-1) > > and most importantly, > > n. the actual BPs the parties needed/wanted to do together, > and the roles of interest to them! > > The negotiation after composition might/would be > needed to trim/filter the desired collaboration > from the technically interoperable combinations > found. Of course, if software were > given as an input to the composition procedure, more > information than simply the two CPPs, then the filtering > and the composition steps can be merged with matching > in a given software product's implementation... > > (It is possible, of course, that two parties each can play buyer/seller > roles in the PO BP _and_ that for business reasons, the CPA needs both > permutations! That was Hammermill and IBM: IBM buying green bar, and > Hammermill buying mainframes...) > > I believe this fact, along with several others we have discovered, > shows that we only want to provide > informational remarks about the merge and composition > process, because we don't know > that exact information inputs into the composition > procedure for a given software > environment.
eList eXpress LLC