[Specs-cx] Multi-party contract

nara hideki hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp
Tue May 11 04:45:12 UTC 2010


H, Nat and David.

I think that /Contract/Party/obligation seems to be better.

 1.  easier to grasp stakeholders in a contract
 2.  each party must sign the contract document and a signature
element must be needed.
 3.  an obligation could be 1 to N relations. Multiple
/Contract/Party/obligation/to can be used.
 4.  a party can owe multiple obligation to different parties in a contract.

One thing we should think of  is  an obligation to "any party in contract".
Although we can provide every obligation to each party, but a wildcard
is quite useful especially when
the number of parties are big.

 ----
hdknr

2010/5/7 David Garcia <david.garcia at tractis.com>:
> +1 to the second one. I think it's more powerful on multilateral contracts,
> because it allows to define party to party obligations with a fine grain
> detail.
> Best regards
>
> David Garcia
> El 07/05/2010, a las 06:36, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> In the current draft, <obiligation> is an child element of <party>. However,
> when we think about the multi-party scenario,
> unless we specify the target that the party is obliged to, it would have no
> meaning.
> Thus, we would have two ways to implement it.
> 1. destination as an attribute.
> <obligation to="partyid">
> 2. Flatten obligations.
> <obligation from="partyaid" to="partybid">
> Which do you think is better?
> From the point of view of writing an application, the second option may be
> easier.
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>
> _______________________________________________
> Specs-cx mailing list
> Specs-cx at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-cx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Specs-cx mailing list
> Specs-cx at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-cx
>
>


More information about the Specs-cx mailing list