Re: Trading Partner or Party - What's in a name

Names and conventions

In response to the issues of what to call a "party" or "trading
Partner", please wait until the TA glossary is published then make
formal comments to our list serve.  There are instances where we have
wasted valuable time changing names, changing, back, then changing a
third time to appease grammar mongers.  I realize this process will be
vital once the final specifications are done but for the time being, we
all know what we are semantically referring to.  In the future,  these
issues must be reached by consensus.

TA has a huge backlog of technical issues to concentrate on.   

Duane Nickull


[email protected] wrote:
> 
> I always thought of a party as a party to a contract and a partner as
> someone doing business with someone else.  They are almost synonymous in
> our context.
> 
> I might mention that a month or so ago, my IBM group hosted a visit from a
> Yale professor and a Yale visitor who are members of legalXML.  They had
> seen tpaML and were very interested in it as a way of incorporating
> technical specifications into a contract formulated as an XML document.
> 
> 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
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> David RR Webber <[email protected]>@compuserve.com> on 08/21/2000
> 03:19:09 PM
> 
> To:   David Burdett <[email protected]>
> cc:   ebxml transport <[email protected]>, Duane Nickull
>       <[email protected]>, Tim McGrath <[email protected]>
> Subject:  RE: Trading Partner or Party - What's in a name
> 
> Message text written by David Burdett
> >
> I agree with putting them both in the glossary.
> 
> How, though, do we decide where they are most applicable?
> 
> David
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> Probably by eliminating when they are in-applicable!?
> 
> Now we have a lawyer on the team - we probably have to consult
> council as well, and decide if the council is a party or a TP, or if
> there is a conflict of interest and then we can't do either - but we
> can decide its an object.
> 
> Only lawyers would sue an object; TRP just transports them, one time,
> one way!
> 
> DW.