Re: [ebxml-bp] WI ??: BP and CPPA's use of name attribute

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Kenji,
In August, you mentioned we had not adhered to the white paper approved 
resolution. Given the clarification provided below from Dale and your 
correction, what is missing or requires change in the updated working 
draft schema? Thank you.

Reference (9/3): 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200409/msg00009.html

>Dale> Can you explain what you would want CPPA to change and why?
>
>Other comments and reactions below.
>
>>* /CPP/CollaborationRole/ProcessSpecification/@name
>>/ProcessSpecification/@name
>>    
>>
>
>I believe this name attribute is of different nature than other 
>name/nameID attributes. ProcessSpecification is the root element of BPSS
>and it doesn't have 
>nameID attribute. This name attribute is not used for reference
>purposes. We won't make it optional. It would be safe to drop this from
>the list.
>
>Dale> This name attribute is not used for reference purposes either
>within BPSS or within CPPA. But for some reason, it is "imported" by
>CPPA when BPSS is used. We can ask on the CPPA list why this value is
>there. I am not certain I recall why it imported. I think that it might
>be a better value for "Service" than the "uuid" value, however. It might
>be
>worth raising as an alignment issues between BPSS 2.0 and CPA 2.1. How
>should BPSS stipulate a value for the value of Service within ebMS? CPPA
>only tries to pass a desired value along, or fill one in when it is
>missing. I think @name was optional, so @uuid was used. But a @uuid
>value is typically less than ideal from a human readability standpoint.
>
>
>  
>
>>* /CPP/CollaborationRole/Role/@name
>>Selected from //Role/@name
>>
>>[The specific xpath to the Role in the BPSS is indicated by a href,
>>    
>>
>which uses a fragment identifier to reference the Role element by its 
>  
>
>>id.]j
>>
>>1/2 * /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
>>/ThisPartyActionBinding/@action Can take value from BPSS (see note) or
>>    
>>
>can use an agreed upon value.
>  
>
>>[CPPA spec notes: When business transactions are not reused in
>>    
>>
>different contexts, it is recommended that the names of the requesting
>business activity and responding business activity be used as action>
>names.]
>
>I didn't put this on my list since @action is not matched against the 
>value in BPSS -- CPPA may specify arbitrary value which MAY be taken 
>from BPSS. It no more references BPSS.
>If we make @name optional, this (taking action name from BPSS) may not
>work. Does this cause any problem? I believe not.
>
>Dale> True, a match of values is not Necessary, but it is Recommended.
>Again, how should BPSS indicate, if it wants, what the Action value
>should be in CPPA and on down to ebMS?
>
>
>ThisPartyActionBinding/@xlink:href references the @name value in BPSS as
>
>URI fragment.
>
>  
>
>>/CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
>>/ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext
>>No specific reference to an information item (container element).
>>
>>*  /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]/
>>ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/@binaryCollaboration
>>Corresponds with value of BinaryCollaboration@name
>>
>>
>>[In 2.0, this will need to be generalized to reference 
>>BinaryCollaboartion, MultipartyCollaboration or 
>>BusinessCollaboration.]
>>
>>* /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]/
>>ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/
>>CollaborationActivity/[CollaborationActivity...]/@name
>>Matches the value of BPSS //CollaborationActivity@name.
>>
>>[These Collaboration activity children are used to select nested BCs.]
>>
>>
>>* /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
>>/ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/@businessTransactionActivity
>>Matches the value of BPSS //BusinessTransactionActivity/@name
>>
>>
>>/CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
>>/ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/@requestOrResponseAction
>>Fixed enumeration.
>>
>>[Aligned with whether the action is a requesting or responding 
>>activity, but nothing is referenced in the BPSS instance directly.]
>>    
>>
>
>CPPA 2.0c specification says "the value of the requestOrResponsAction 
>attribute MUST match the value of the name attribute of the 
>RequestingBusinessActivity element corresponding to the Business 
>Transaction specified in the businessTransactionActivity attribute" Any
>change in later version?
>
>Dale> Right, Kenji. My mistake.
>
>I relied on my faulty memory for this item rather than rereading the
>text (I think because I usually just use values for these name
>attributes such as "request" or "response" and they don't percolate down
>to messaging. )
>
>  
>