Super work Jamie.
Works for my business, after I read your explanation which someway needs to
reflect back in some final documentation to the general public when we're
all done !
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:54 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Multi-BP CPAs (TP teleconf 2-28-01)
>
>
> For those of you who are following CPA-BP collaboration
> dependencies, I
> wanted to pass along these matters from the 2/28 TP conference call.
>
> This is one of two messages, one e-mail per topic. Words in
> quotes below
> are loosely rather than strictly employed. Sorry, but I am
> trying to grope
> towards simple understandings of complex things.
>
> Multi-BP CPAs
> -------------------
>
> In a CPA, parties may "approve" their future use of a BP by
> including a
> reference to (or digest of) a ProcessSpecification document
> that "defines"
> a method for that BP for those two parties. A single CPA might also
> "approve" the use of 30 different bilateral BPs, in collaborations or
> otherwise.
>
> The question came up yesterday whether a CPA that "approves"
> 30 different
> BPs should be capable of incremental amendment without
> requiring a new CPA.
> I think not. Trading partners may wish to enter into long term
> arrangements (like purchase agreements) that rely on the continuing
> availability of multiple BPs (like change orders or returned goods
> protocols). Also, as a practical matter, as we've discussed
> in BP, CPA
> formation may to be the obvious (and sometimes only) exposed
> control point
> for institutional channel management of these e-transactions.
> So I am not
> too keen on permitting incremental modification to a CPA
> without explicit
> renegotiation of the whole set of BPs embodied in it.
>
> So I shilled for the following outcome, which I think has
> been accepted by
> TP:
> (a) If you have an XML-DSIG-signed CPA "approving" 30 BPs,
> the sig will
> hash over the whole set of 30. Thus, if you try to assert a
> change in one
> BP, the sig will be invalidated, as a few bits have been
> jostled, forcing
> the parties to renegotiate the CPA.
> (b) If trading partners want to be able to do 30 different
> things, with
> no dependencies, they may enter into 30 distinct CPAs.
>
> <minutes excerpt>
> >It was noted that when a CPA references multiple
> >Process-Specification Documents, it should be assumed that those
> >processes are interrelated and invalidating the CPA and all of the
> >Process-Specification documents when a problem develops with one
> >of them is the correct action from a business viewpoint.
> </minutes excerpt>
>
> Please let me know if anyone thinks this is the wrong
> conclusion, in which
> case, I need to go do some groveling in TP. Jamie
>
> James Bryce Clark
> Spolin Silverman & Cohen LLP
> 310 586 2404 [email protected]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
> [email protected]
>
