RE: Negotiation problem

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Michael,

	pls find my comments embedded.
Best regards
/stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Joya [mailto:mike.joya@xmlglobal.com]
> Sent: 31 January 2001 01:14
> To: Stefano POGLIANI
> Cc: ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: Negotiation problem
>
>
> Stefano POGLIANI wrote:
>
> >         There is a SINGLE CPA that is negotiated by the two parties.
> >         Let's take the simple case of two parties stating they support
one BP (it
> >         will be simple to extend to multiple BPs).
>
> >        The CPP of PartyA references the BP_Sell_The_Flowers. The CPP of
PartyB also
> >         references the BP_SellThe_Flowers. PartyA and PartyB negotiate
ONE CPA.
> >         Your (2) (which says, if I am correct "The Respondant must
calculate the exact
> >         same CPA as her potential client") is improbable in the sense
that there is
> >         only one CPA
>
>   I understand that only one CPA exists between the two parties
> for a given BP. The problems I face are:
>
> a) who authors it?

	So far, this is not perceived as an issue.
	It is not important who is going to author it, but what will the CPA
	contains and which format will it portray.

	As far as I am concerned, I would like (obviously) to have/build a tool
	which would be able to properly deal with the following:
	- editing/displaying CPPs
	- editing/displaying CPA
	- helping in composing a CPA from two CPPs (drag/drop, automatic
	  verification of compatibilities etc)

	As someone (Marty I think) pointed out recently, it will be very difficult
	to think that a CPA can be "generated" in an univoque way; I personally
	think that a tool may help in composing a CPA but human intervention
	will be required, at least up until there will be more knowledge on the
topic.

	This does not mean that there is no format for the CPA, of course. But that
	there "may" be many ways to express the same concept or there may be
variants
	that cannot easily be picked up automatically

> b) how does the non-authoring party come into possession of it?

	As far as I understand today, the two parties will work off-line to
	cooperatively build/compose the CPA.
	Fax, e-mail, snail-mail, phone...

	I think that, as someone already pointed out, automatic negotiation of
	the CPA is not currently the most critical issue, nor it is a showstopper.
	Once the CPA format is known and once the relationships between the
	CPA tags and the two-CPPs tags will be explained, one could arrive to
	the CPA itself. Someone could say: well, but this will be laborious and
	there is no grant that the process is univoque. I may agree, but
	unless the CPA specs will prevent people from understanding how the
	CPA content is derived from the CPPs contents, then it will be fine
	for the infrastructure release.

>
>   Option 2 infers that both parties have with the same BP and CPP
> documents to start off with. They each create (independently) identical
copies of
> the same CPA document.
>
>
	I do not think that "creating identical copies" is the best approach.
	It is not impossible, though, and nothing in the CPA specs will prevent
this from
	happening. But it seems to me (personal consideration) the longest way to
	reach the result.

>
> PS: My most recent copy of the CPP&A Specification is v0.1 dated
> 01/15/01. Is this up to date?

	The latest should be V0.29

>
>
>
> --
> // Michael Joya
> // XML Global Research and Development
> // 1818 Cornwall Ave. Suite 9
> // Vancouver, Canada
> // 604-717-1100x230
>
>
>
>