OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i093 cardinality replacements


I understand the background. Now that we have identified the specific
changes that are being made I question the necessity for this one. Most
of the others that have been made that were explained on last week's
call seem fine. This one I think we don't need to make. We have
normative dependencies on other specs that describe elements this way so
the reader will be familiar with the style. I think the current style is
more readable and easier to understand than the other alternatives I see
on the table right now. Frankly I can't think of a better way to say it
either.

Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM [mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:30 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i093 cardinality replacements

The TC took a vote and decided to more correctly align with RFC 2119. 
That RFC is about implementations, not exchanged messages. Personifying
elements and attributes is a Bad Idea[tm].

On 24/05/06 13:23, Marc Goodner wrote:
> Why are we changing the text around these again? I'm sorry but I don't

> find the current text confusing. As to saying that we can't say an 
> element is REQUIRED according to 2119 I can easily find precedent for 
> this language in W3C Recommendations. I don't think we need to do
this.
>
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:02 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] i093 cardinality replacements
>
> As of WD-12 our spec has a number of explanations of sub-elements with

> the following pattern:
>
> 	/wsrm:Foo/wsrm:Baz
> 	This [REQUIRED | OPTIONAL] element . . 
>
> There are actually a number of different cases under which this 
> pattern is used.
>
> 1) Describing a singly-nested sub-element within a message element.
> Example: /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:AcksTo
>
> 2) Describing a singly-nested sub-element within a header element.
> Example: /wsrm:AckRequested/wsrm:Identifier
>
> 3) Describing a doubly-nested sub-element within a top-level message 
> element when the parent element is optional. Example:
> /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Identifier
>
> There are other cases like doubly-nested attributes within top-level 
> header elements who's parent elements are optional, etc. but you get 
> the point.
>
>
> I have used the following patterns to address these cases:
>
> 1) The RM [Source | Destination] [MUST | MAY] include this element in 
> any Foo message it sends.
>
> (Note the use of the informal "Foo message" as shorthand for "SOAP 
> envelope that includes the <wsrm:Foo> element in the body of that
> envelope")
>
> 2) An RM [Source | Destination] that includes a <wsrm:Foo> header 
> block in a SOAP envelope [MUST | MAY] include this element in that 
> header block.
>
> 3) An RM [Source | Destination] that includes a <wsrm:Baz> element 
> within a Foo message [MUST | MAY] include this element as a child of 
> the <wsrm:Baz> element.
>
> If anyone in the group has any suggestions on some better phrasing for

> these patterns I would be more than happy to hear them.
>
> Also, with respect to the idea that the current cardinality statements

> are somehow clear to the reader, take a second look at the example for

> case (3):
>
> /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Identifier
> This REQUIRED element MUST contain an absolute URI conformant with
> RFC3986 [URI] that uniquely identifies the offered Sequence.
>
> What it *means* is that if you include an Offer in your CreateSequence

> then you MUST include the Identifier in that Offer but all it *says* 
> is "This REQUIRED element . . ." This doesn't seem very clear to me at
all.
>
> - gp
>
>   


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]