Dan,
The CPA is defined as being between two Parties, each having a PartyId. If
I remember correctly, the MS spec defines Parties as the sender and
receiver of a message. What has to be made clear is that a business
enterprise may consist of many Parties, so that PartyId cannot be equated
with an enterprise. To make this clear, one may have to define the term
"enterprise" or another term that works for both very large and very small
companies.
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
*************************************************************************************
Dan Weinreb <> on 10/28/2001 11:20:42 PM
Please respond to Dan Weinreb <>
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: , ,
,
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Proposed schema changes, plus illustrative
examp le
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:02:38 -0500
From: "Martin W Sachs" <>
OK, that's fine with me, as long as we make it very clear to our
readership that a PartyId, *despite its name*, does not uniquely
identify a "party". Is that right?
MWS: Let's try this: An enterprise may own one or more PartyIds. A
given
PartyId belongs to only one enterprise. In that sense, it is unique.
That's fine, as far as the relationship between "enterprise" and
"PartyId" goes. But I also think we have to state that the
relationship between "PartyId" and "party" is *not* that a PartyId
identifies a party, as one might otherwise presume from the name.
-- Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
