Re: Vienna BP-TP coord (was Re: negotiation business process)

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Jamie,

We are in complete agreement about the priority of the negotiation business
process.  I will leave it until late in the week in the event that the
other loose ends are tied down by then.

Dale, since discussing the negotiation business process was your
suggestion, could you perhaps start an email dialog with Jamie on your
questions?

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
*************************************************************************************



James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com> on 05/04/2001 11:15:34 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Vienna BP-TP coord (was Re: negotiation business process)



At 05:37 PM 5/4/2001 , Martin W Sachs wrote:
>Jamie,
>I have the negotiation business process on my agenda.  However,
>I can't promise Monday.  Lots of loose ends suddenly turned up
>Thursday that are Version 1 issues.  If I were to schedule everything
>Monday that people asked for, we would need to have the whole 40 or
>so hours of the meeting on Monday  :-)  The TP team will do some
>serious prioritizing Monday morning as, I imagine that the other teams
>will also.

Lots of loose ends in all directions -- we all seem to be suffering from
that.

Marty, Paul & Karsten:   As to BP-TP coordination:

1.   Absolutely;  the negotiation function is only one of many alignment
issues, including service-action and other recent e-mails on the TP list.
2.    Brian Hayes originally proposed a joint F2Fmeeting next Wednesday, in
his e-mail yesterday.   Obviously you will have to do some scheduling
coordination once everyone lands.
3.   While I am personally fascinated by the
CPA-negotiation-over-BP-pattern issue, I doubt it is the most important
alignment deliverable for the two teams.  (It is a functionality which we
could omit from 1.0 without the whole set of standards looking foolish.
Most of the PoC samples seem to be assuming unilateral adoption of CPAs,
not dynamic formation.   That's probably a good triage decision.   By
contrast, some of the other alignment issues desperately need attention
before we "ship" 1.0.)   I didn't get comments during either public comment
period,  so we could reasonably view this as one of the
insufficiently-matured issues for post-Vienna development.

So I am content to leave the matter to Darwinian bandwidth allocation.  If
agenda time permits discussion of the negotiation pattern is discussed, I
will be available to join, and happy to work on it.   (And if someone
actually has artifacts demonstrating their concern, it would be very
helpful to see them first.)   If not, Marty, could you or Dale or someone
talk to me or Paul or Marcia briefly (say by Thursday) about triage
amendments to the bpPATT document to flag the issue as one for future work.

Best regards and safe travel    Jamie

James Bryce Clark
Spolin Silverman & Cohen LLP
310 586 2404    jbc@lawyer.com