Subject: RE: Special note for CPP members
> The problem many people are starting to see is that Vendor A and vendor >B need to have a definition of what the correct CPA should look like >given two CPP's as input. More than likely, the two tools will produce >two different CPAs unless there is a specification or set of rules >(perhaps in the non normative section as you suggested) to guide the >vendors. 1. A CPP is a collaborator's advertized capabilities for conducting BPs. CPP software is not required to advertize all capabilities. So, each collaborator may posess 'knowledge' of its capabilities beyond what is in its CPP and that knowledge may permit it to propose a CPA that would not be proposed if an agent were restricted to using just the information visibly advertized in two public accessible CPPs. 2. Putting point 1. aside for the moment, suppose the CPPs are the full capabilities. Without knowing the specifics of what BP(s) A and B as collaborators want to do together, two CPPs could only be merged to obtain a 'maximal' match of what collaborations they could do together. The actual CPA would presumably reflect the business context between A and B and could be a subset of collaborations that are technically feasible. 3. Putting aside points 1 and 2, there is hope that we can eventually provide non-normative comments on computing the maximal match of two CPPs by explaining how to check (1) that the roles complement, (2) that an interoperable transport exists, (3) that some compatible security solution exists, (4) that matching capabilities exist for document generation/parsing (packaging and schema/dtds match), and (5) that the grabbag of other factors (reliable messaging, signals, timeouts, etc etc) are available or not. It seems likely that some human fine-tuning will be needed for the end-game, but the configuration decisions faced by the user may be reduced dramatically in complexity. So even without complete automation, configuration should be easier for end users. I think this is as ambitious as the current deadline admits us to get. And we are still quite a bit off on getting this much finished. >It is the "same procedures" wording that causes the majority >of concerns. What are those "same procedures" and where do I find them >if I am building a CPA negotion engine?
eList eXpress LLC