ebxml-tp message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: Re: Special note for CPP members


The TP team discussed CPA generation from CPPs and concluded that the
generation process is outside the team's scope as initially constituted.
The team did set itself a requirement of defining the CPP and CPA such that
composition and negotiation are possible.

There is a high level issue with your proposal.  I believe that a lot of
people will argue that defining the CPA composition process at that level
of detail is designing the implementation.  Since there is no
interoperability issue in the CPA composition software, it is not at all
clear that ebXML should define a standard that is for all practical
purposes software design in an area where there is no harm in two different
CPA composers doing it differently.  I believe that a decision to define a
composition standard should be reviewed at the highest levels of ebXML.

If there are specific concerns that people designing CPA composers have,
they can bring these to the attention of the TP team.  It may be that
specific concerns can be addressed with specific changes to details of the
CPP/CPA specification without having to design a composer.

In any case, this team only began its work in August, giving it just 5
months to settle on requirements and then complete a version 1.0 spec
(measured from August to the start of the QR cycles for April, a deadline
that we did not meet).  So even if ebXML approves such a requirement on the
TP team, the team could not possibly start work on it until after version
1.0, which means after May, 2001 (assuming that ebXML continues to exist
beyond May).

I urge you not to add this requirement at this time since it can't possibly
be fulfilled.  If ebXML continues after May, a CPA composition standard can
be discussed at the May or July 2001 meeting.


P.S., the terms are "Collaboration Protocol Agreement" and "Collaboration
Protocol Profile".  I believe that I pointed this out in my comments to the
TA spec.

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

Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/29/2001 05:40:18 PM

To:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  Special note for CPP members

Hello all:

As we conclude the TA Specification and the disposition of comments, it
has become apparent that there is a potential shortcoming on
specifications regarding the Trading Partner issues, specifically
concerning CPA generation from CPP's and business processes.  In order
to facilitate CPA negotiation,  people who are building reference
implementations have informed us that they believe it is necessary to
observe a standard protocol for deriving a CPA from CPP's.

Therefore,  we have added two small sections to the technical
architecture specification (NOTE: not officially approved by the TA team
yet) which read as follows:

"CPA negotiation SHALL be strictly defined.   Issues such a precedence,
prioritization and the mechanics of the negotiation process SHALL be
addressed in the ebXML Specifications governing Collaborative Protocol

"A CPA negotiation protocol SHALL be defined by the ebXML TP Project

Comments please? (Today if possible)

Duane Nickull
TA Team

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC