| Hi Dave,
That's not quite right - the text of the specification would take precedence; if the schema (or snippets of schema) are incorporated into the text, the actual XSD file is deemed authoritative.
There are oftentimes requirements that can't be encoded in schema syntax; alternate syntaxes may lack other functionality resulting in no one syntax capturing the full set of requirements.
Here's the exact language from the Process Policy: "All normative computer language definitions that are part of the specification, such as XML instances, schemas and Java(TM) code, including fragments of such, must be well-formed and valid, and must be provided in separate plain text files. Each text file must be referenced from the specification. Where any definition in these separate files disagrees with the definition found in the specification, the definition in the separate file prevails."
That said, great catch. Consistency is good :)
Regards,
Mary
On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Dave Ings wrote: It is good to be consistent. :-) So we should fix this.
However note that in the revised OASIS process, effective September 1, in the case of conflict between the spec text and the XSD the XSD wins (always, no exceptions).
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2009-07-30.php#specQuality
Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: ings@ca.ibm.com
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings
<graycol.gif>"Trickovic, Ivana" ---2009/10/28 10:05:09 AM---Target: WS-HumanTask 1.1 CD 05 revision 10 Issue Description:
From: "Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com>
To: "bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org" <bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "'luc.clement@activevos.com'" <luc.clement@activevos.com>
Date: 2009/10/28 10:05 AM
Subject: [bpel4people] New issue: Mismatch between the specification text and XSD/XSD snippets in the document
Target: WS-HumanTask 1.1 CD 05 revision 10
Issue Description:
Elements “peopleAssignment” and “presentationElements” are defined as optional elements in section 4.1 (Overall Syntax) and ws-humantask.xsd.
Section 4.2 says that these elements are mandatory.
Remove the inconsistency between the specification text and the XSD.
Proposal:
Make the following changes in section 4.2, lines 1374 and 1392:
Include
“The element is optional.”
Instead of
“The element is mandatory.”
Regards,
Ivana
Ivana Trickovic
Standards Architect
SAP AG
Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16
69190 Walldorf, Germany
T +49 6227 7-63228
F +49 6227 78-33160
M +49 151 57118422
mailto:ivana.trickovic@sap.com
www.sap.com
Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.
This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.
|