Re: Minor inconsistency in Section 8 of the CPPA spec

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Arvola,

The intent was, for the most part, not to repeat information in the CPA
section that is covered in the CPP section.  This is stated in lines
1874-1878.  Perhaps we went too far in leaving things out of 8.2.  The CPPA
team may wish to include more information in 8.2.  The flip side of the
coin, of course, is that repetition may also lead to inconsistency when
changes are made.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 07/26/2001 05:51:01 PM

To:   ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:  Minor inconsistency in Section 8 of the CPPA spec





Section 8.1 shows an example CPA while Section 8.2  describes the element
structure. The Packaging and Comment elements shown in  Section 8.1 are
missing from Section 8.2.

To be consistent, Section 8.2 should mention the Packaging and Comment
elements and there should be a sub-section on Packaging added to Section 8.
There already is a Comment sub-section (8.8).

-Arvola

Arvola Chan (arvola@tibco.com)
TIBCO Software  (on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)