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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-bp message

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


Subject: ebBP 4/1/2005: Comment re: Quality Attribute Group (wd10-schema 2/22)


Everyone,
There has been more discussions and input regarding the quality and 
documentSecurity attribute groups.

With inputs from Dale, John and others, I've developed a draft 
recommendation that I believe represents our discussions, scope and 
intent. I'd like to talk about these briefly on Tuesday. Please comment 
prior to that time on any questions, updates or comments. Thank you.

John, if you have more comments, please send to the list.

*===========================================================================================================
*

*These matrices show whether or not each attribute in the attribute 
group ‘quality’ can be specified as a restriction on the Requesting or 
RespondingBusinessActivity for each concrete pattern (where it may or 
may not be used). Operational semantics are held in the patterns rather 
than the schema (i.e. no defaults are specified). For example, a ‘X’ in 
isAuthorizationRequired for Request-Response indicates that this 
attribute will be in the restriction list of available attributes for 
this pattern. No default or use will be specified in the BPSS (schema).*

/REQUESTING/

Pattern/Quality

	

/CT/BT/

	

/LegacyBT/

	

/NOF/

	


    /DataExchange/

	

/Req-Resp/

	

/Req-Confirm/

	

/Query-Resp/

	

/InfoDist/

1. isAuth

	X
	X
	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

2. isIntel

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

3. isNonRReqd

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

4. isNonRRRReqd

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

5. timetoAR

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

6. timetoAA

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

7. retryCount

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

/RESPONDING/
Pattern/Quality//


	

/CT/BT/

	

/LegacyBT/

	

/NOF/

	

/DataExchange/

	

/Req-Resp/

	

/Req-Confirm/

	

/Query-Resp/

	

/InfoDist/

1. isAuth

	

X

	X
	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

2. isIntel

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

3. isNonRReqd

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

4. isNonRRRReqd

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

5. timetoAR

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

6. timetoAA

	

X

	

X

	

N/A

	

X

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

7. retryCount

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

X

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

	

N/A

Recommendations:

1. For correct use of restriction, name each attribute of the quality 
attribute group that may be used by each concrete pattern (see matrices 
above).

2. Do not define a retryCount on RespondingBusinessActivity on any 
concrete pattern. Ask for business requirements on inclusion of such an 
attribute on RespondingBusinessActivity. This is consistent with 
previous versions.

3. In previous versions, documentSecurity existed on the Attachment and 
DocumentEnvelope elements rather than the BusinessActionType. Our team 
has identified that the documentSecurity may vary for the business 
document and/attachment(s) based on the pattern used. What is the 
preference on where to place the documentSecurity attribute group? 
Decision TBD.

4. How do we restrict that there is only one logical business document 
in the DocumentEnvelope in the current schema? We can have a logical 
business document from many referenceable parts (i.e. more than one 
namespace) but there should not be more than one logical business 
document. This constraint is expressed in the annotation. How else is it 
restricted in the schema?

5. On quality attribute group in technical specification, indicate more 
attributes may be identified based on business requirements (i.e. for 
DataExchange element, partners may decide they need to specify others we 
may not know about). What change is suggested in the schema (if any)?

6. In previous versions, LegacyBusinessTransaction only used the pattern 
attribute not a concrete pattern. Therefore the pattern attribute would 
be used and not the explicit concrete patterns. Decision TBD on quality 
group attributes (see #4 below).

7. In previous versions, RequestingBusinessActivity and 
RespondingBusinessActivity were extensions of BusinessAction (see below) 
and therefore took on these
defaults, regardless of what pattern was used. Example, see v1.05 
snippet below. Therefore, recommend we either (1) not set a default on 
or (2) set a default of ‘false’
on each specified quality attribute group attributes (effectively 
leaving the decisions, the operational semantics, and guiding principles 
outside of the XML schema).

<xsd:complexType name="BusinessAction">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element ref="Documentation" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attributeGroup ref="name"/>
<xsd:attribute name="isAuthorizationRequired" type="xsd:boolean" 
default="false"/>
<xsd:attribute name="isIntelligibleCheckRequired" type="xsd:boolean" 
default="false"/>
<xsd:attribute name="isNonRepudiationRequired" type="xsd:boolean" 
default="false"/>
<xsd:attribute name="isNonRepudiationReceiptRequired" type="xsd:boolean" 
default="false"/>
<xsd:attribute name="timeToAcknowledgeReceipt" type="xsd:duration"/>
<xsd:attribute name="timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance" type="xsd:duration"/>
</xsd:complexType>
*===========================================================================================================*




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