Re: Special note for CPP members

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Matthew,
*Without focusing on the schedule and logistics*,
It is not true that "interoperability will be nearly impossible in the
business process stack.".

Business/consortiums can still agree on what specific BP *are*, and the
service interfaces, represent them in consistent
rendering, and conduct business even if with manually typing in the runtime
configuration file (CPA), but without dynamic
fully automatic interoperable discovery and agreement formulation. These
are
important steps in themselves -consistent BP representations and using them
to do business with other
ebXML infrastructure components, even if you know your business partners
already.

The ToDo list is a good idea.

Marty -please post to stc list. thanks.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



"Matthew MacKenzie" <matt@xmlglobal.com> on 01/30/2001 10:08:39 AM

Please respond to matt@xmlglobal.com

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
      Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>, "Welsh, David"
      <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>, "Bob Haugen (E-mail)"
      <linkage@interaccess.com>, "Brian Hayes (E-mail)"
      <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>, ebXML-StC <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>,
      ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org"
      <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  Re: Special note for CPP members



Scott,

If such wording is not allowed to be placed in the TA spec., and there is
no
work done to address the actual negotiation protocol, interoperability will
be nearly impossible in the business process stack.  Do you expect CPAs to
be negotiated by hand until ebXML v2?

It is not enough to tout transport and registry interoperability.  Users
and
vendors need to fill in the CPA blank with a negotiation protocol, which if
followed by implementors will result in fewer unaccepted CPAs.

Having said that, I understand that you guys are under the gun for time.
Would it not be possible to add a discussion about this topic to a public
TODO list, so that interested parties will see that the problem is
acknowledged?

Cheers,

Matthew MacKenzie
XMLGlobal

<<| message from: "Scott Hinkelman" <srh@us.ibm.com> |>>
There is consensus in the TP team not to define a negotiation protocol. [As
> a participant
> in both,] I am not in favor of the proposed TA wording due to this fact .
>
> It does certainly effect the *level* of interoperability with specific
> ebXML parts, but I see
> no "make or break" issues in ebXML  --parts will be able to be used to
some
> levels of interoperability,
> with or without other parts, achieving the goal of loosely-coupled
modules.
> This is much more analog than binary.
>
> If such protocol would eventually be defined it is far from designing an
> implementation, so I would
> think it to be a candidate in some future life.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
>
>
> Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 01/30/2001 07:51:40 AM
>
> To:   Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
> cc:   "Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>, "Bob Haugen (E-mail)"
>       <linkage@interaccess.com>, "Brian Hayes (E-mail)"
>       <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>, ebXML-StC
<ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>,
>       matt@xmlglobal.com, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  Re: Special note for CPP members
>
>
>
>
> Duane,
>
> There was a better way.  You could have phoned me to discuss before
hitting
> me with proposed TA text that is really in the province of the
Requirements
> team to begin with (for example:  "A CPA negotiation protocol SHALL be
> defined...").
>
> Had you phoned me, I would have said that:
>
>    The TP team is planning a non-normative appendix describing what
>    knowledge we are developing about CPA composition and negotiation
>    techniques.  It is likely that this will be sufficient to guide the
>    implementers.
>
>    The TP team is still arguing about some fundamental structural issues,
>    so that even the non-normative appendix is in the future (though most
>    likely, it will be in V1.0).
>
>    While I am extremely pleased that companies are already working on
>    reference implementations of composition/negotiation, they should take
>    heed of the current version number (0.29) since it is a heads-up that
a
>    lot could change before V 1.0.
>
>    ...and, as I did say, the TP team is very sensitive to the need for a
>    CPP structure that is composable into the CPA.  The best way to handle
>    the questions that have been raised is for those people who are
working
>    on reference implementations to feed their questions and concerns to
the
>    TP team via its listserver since many (if not all) of those issues
>    should be addressed in the design of the CPP itself rather than by
>    putting together a normative specification that is really software
>    design and does not involve interoperability as we usually understand
>    interoperability.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> 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
>
>
*************************************************************************************

>
>
>
>
> Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/29/2001 07:28:01 PM
>
> To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   "Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>, "Bob Haugen (E-mail)"
>       <linkage@interaccess.com>, "Brian Hayes (E-mail)"
>       <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>, ebXML-StC
<ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>,
>       matt@xmlglobal.com
> Subject:  Re: Special note for CPP members
>
>
>
> Marty:
>
> I agree.  I also acknowledge that you have stated all along that the CPA
> negotiation is outside of the scope of your group.
>
> But...
>
> as people are starting to actually implement this type of software,
> they are seeing that this is potentially a make or break issue.
>
> Problem:
>
> You are right that it is very unlikely such an effort could be
> effectively started (nevermind completed) before May.  It will likely be
> totally dependant on the work your group is doing and probably cannot be
> effectively scoped beforehand.
>
> I think this issue is rather large therefore the Steering committee was
> notified.
>
> I don't have a solution either so let's hope someone out there is
> listening and has some spare time to ponder...
>
> Duane
>
> Martin W Sachs wrote:
> >
> > Duane,
> >
> > Since your last email was copied to the Steering Committee, I believe
> that
> > it is appropriate for the Steering committee to see my response in full
> > along with your original email (below).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marty
> >
> > Martin W Sachs
> > 01/29/2001 06:48 PM
> >
> > To:   Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
> > cc:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
> > From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> > Subject:  Re: Special note for CPP members  (Document link: Martin W.
> >       Sachs)
> >
> > Duane,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marty
> >
> > 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>
> > cc:
> > 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
> > Agreements."
> >
> > "A CPA negotiation protocol SHALL be defined by the ebXML TP Project
> > Team."
> >
> > Comments please? (Today if possible)
> >
> > Duane Nickull
> > TA Team
> >
> >
>
*************************************************************************************

>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
*************************************************************************************

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<| end message from "Scott Hinkelman" <srh@us.ibm.com> |>>

--
Matthew MacKenzie
VP Research & Development, Founder
XML Global Technologies, Inc.