Re: [ebxml-msg] Additional feedback to ebMS2.0 and CPPA

[Doug Bunting <db134722@iplanet.com>]

Iwasa,

Regarding the first three items, please see below.

iwasa wrote:

> All,
>
> Here are some feedback to ebXML MS2.0 spec.
> These are came from ECOM ebXML interoperability
> activity that Fujitsu is one of the leading vendor.
>
> 1. xlink:type should be REQUIRED.
>    In detail, XLINK specification defines that xlink:type
>    to be REQUIRED, but ebXML MS spec defines that
>    SOAPBody-Manifest-Reference-xlink:type
>    is OPTIONAL. So ebXML MS spec should
>    make it mandatory to conform to XLINK.

The xlink:type value MUST be provided in the infoset resulting from parsing an
XML instance using the provided schema.  In our schema, the
Reference@xlink:type attribute is fixed, meaning it is optional in the XML
instance but required in the infoset (and will always have the value
"simple").  Section 5.3 of the XLink Recommendation uses exactly the same
schema mechanism.  I don't believe a change is required here.

> 2. The format of start parameter in the sample of
>     section "2.1.2 Message Packaging" is wrong.
>     Currently the spec has:
>          start=messagepackage-123@example.com
>     But it should be :
>         start="<messagepackage-123@example.com>"
>     The sample of "B.2.2 Sending ebXML Service
>     messages over HTTP" is correct.

Agreed.  Isn't it fun tracing everything back to RFC 2822?

> 3. It is ambiguous which value you should use
>     for Role element under From and To element
>     in the MessageHeader.
>     CollaborationProtocolAgreement/PartyInfo/CollaborationRole/Role@name
>                     or
> CollaborationProtocolAgreement/PartyInfo/CollaborationRole/Role@xlink:href
>     There is description that URI is recommended for the value
>     but sample of the CPPA specification is using the other one:
>     @name : "Buyer"
>     @xlink:href : "http://www.rosettanet.org/processes/3A4.xml#Buyer";

I'm not entirely certain what the issue is here.  Are you commenting on
another ambiguous interaction between the CPP/A or BPSS documents and an ebXML
Message conforming to those requirements, something similar to our earlier
discussions around the Service and Action values?  If I remember correctly,
those earlier discussions were resolved (after discussion between the TC's and
with UN/CEFACT) in the CPP/A or BPSS specifications.  Our current
specification certainly does not describe the specific source in a BPSS or
CPP/A instance for the Service or Action values.  Are you suggesting a
different approach for the Role element value or am I missing the real issue?

...

> Thanks,
>
> Iwasa
> Fujitsu Limited

and, thanks to you,
    doug

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>