Re: [One-project-devel] Inclusion of RFI in meta-model

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

Hi thanks 'lot for the reply,

I have a comment about (3) because this issue is pretty complex.
- visible at runtime?
- visible across participants?
- visible at the end of a negotiation?
- "visible" via the scripting language?
- what about private/public negotiations?
- avoid authorization mechanism in the DKB

A) invitation is only for private negotiations, and for the reasons
listed in my recent email, the list of the participants for a private
negotiation shall always be hidden before and during the negotiation
(not even been persistent in the DBK). This information can be
disclosured by the Engine at the end of the negotiation across
participants: implementation strategy is yet to be discussed.

B) Regarding public negotiations, I agree with Volker about this
ability. In my perspective this can be a property of the model (e.g.
"Visible Participants") that can be set in the model (i.e. in the
Editor) or during the setup (be careful about when a negotiation is to
be Private). This implementation is in charge of the Engine that, given
the "Visible Participants" attribute can provide this information across
participants and in the Portal as part of the "negotiation status"

C) Regarding the ability of "reading" the participants using the
Scripting language in the Editor, I'd discourage this feature because
this'd open up the ability for hacking the scripting language of a
negotiation (by reading the participant identity) for the benefit of a
single participant. Regarding this point someone might argue that since
this code is publicly available this'd quickly be discovered as it
happens for Open Source applications.Yes this is True...but given the
nature of this project (economical transactions are to be supported) I
prefer security over flexibility at this stage.+

Summary:
- invitations are never be to be stored
- the DKB has not to implement authorization schemas
- only the Engine knows the identity of participants
- the Engine shares the identities of participants at run-time only for
public negotiations and only if the owner has allowed this feature
- the scripting language reads participants information in an anonymous w=
ay

Of course this does not conclude the issue about participants
visibility,  any comments are appreciated and encouraged

Best Regards
Pierfranco

Hoyer, Volker wrote:
> Hi Claire,
> =20
> please find below my comments regarding your questions:
> (1) I'm not sure if I understand you correct. >From my perpective the
> negotiation issue could represent an amount, a value, a free text
> (string), a date, etc. I don't know how you will include the amount in
> the meta model.=20
> (2) Concerning the comments of the Greek reviewer, we should include a
> RFI message in the meta-model. I think it would not change your meta
> model in general, but we have explicitly a message he requested for.
> (3) To provide an open meta model supporting different business
> scenarios, it would be great if the negotiation owner is able to define=

> if the participants can view the lists of participants or not.
> =20
> =20
> =20
> Best regards,
> Volker
> =20
> =20
>=20
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
> *From:* Claire Fahy [mailto:cf...@ts...]
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 6.Dezember 2007 18:28
> *To:* 'Katarina Stanoevska'; Hoyer, Volker
> *Cc:* pfe...@so...; 'Zohra Boudjemil'; 'Jason Finnegan'
> *Subject:* Inclusion of RFI in meta-model
> *Importance:* High
>=20
> 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  =93Amount=94 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 =93Issue=94 to allow for an issue that would represent=

> =93quantity=94 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 =93information=94 within the meta-model which may used 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 =93list of participants=94 of the negotiation 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