[One-project-devel] list of participants (was: Re: Inclusion of RFI in meta-model)

[Pierfranco F. <pfe...@so...>]

Hi,

for the sake of security and for avoiding the DKB to implement a
Authorization mechanism we believe that the list of invited participants
to a private negotiations has not to be stored with the negotiation
instance in the DKB: as a consequence the setup will send the emails and
then discard those address.

Moreover for the same reasons we believe (WIT and SN) that the Scripting
Language facility in the Editor has to be implemented only at the owner
side.

Concluding, the list of participants is an information to be provided in
the Scripting Language. Still I personally believe the list has to be
given in anonymous way, at least until the Acceptance phase.

To be decided with WIT is the mechanism of the Engine to authenticate
the participants on a private negotiation when joining (e.g. by means of
a token sent in the invitation mail).

Notice that the Engine knows the identity of participants, but this
information has not to be advertised or provided.

Any comments?

Best Regards
Pierfranco

Soluta.net

Pierfranco Ferronato
CIO and Founder
Soluta.Net,Italy
Innovation in Action
http://www.soluta.net

Tel: +39-0423-915547
Fax: +39-0423-915547
ICQ: 297565827
Skype: pferronato

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer.



Claire Fahy wrote:
> Hi Katarina and Volker,
>=20
> We have been having some discussions within WP3 and we had some
> questions towards WP1 regarding the presence of business requirements
> for the issues discussed. These issues include:
>=20
> 1)       The concept of  =E2=80=9CAmount=E2=80=9D to be included in the=
 meta-model. Do
> you feel there is a need to add this concept to the meta-model as a
> specification of =E2=80=9CIssue=E2=80=9D to allow for an issue that wou=
ld represent
> =E2=80=9Cquantity=E2=80=9D within the negotiation?
>=20
> 2)       Relating to the handling of RFI in the meta-model, we wanted t=
o
> ask if you felt there was a business requirement to explicitly include
> it as a message in the meta-model. Currently, we have a generic message=

> called =E2=80=9Cinformation=E2=80=9D within the meta-model which may us=
ed to handle it.
> Do you believe that since the meta-model represents the concepts of
> negotiation for a business user, a user would look for terminology such=

> as RFI?
>=20
> 3)       Should the =E2=80=9Clist of participants=E2=80=9D of the negot=
iation be
> something that is only viewable by the owner?
>=20
> =20
>=20
> For more information, please look to the minutes of our discussion at:
>=20
> http://one-project.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/WP3_Meeting_Minuts_-_=
4_December_2007
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Thanks for your help,
>=20
> Best Regards,
>=20
> Claire
>=20