Re: [ebxml-cppa] My change contributions to the 1.09 draft

[Tony Weida <rweida@hotmail.com>]

Arvola and Dale,

Exactly what version did you start with to create version 1.08?  At least my
changes for version 1.07 seem to have been lost.  For example, the version
1.07 that I distributed on Feb. 11 already included the affiliations of TC
members, yet this version shows the affiliations being added as if they were
never there.  Likewise, the revised outline at the end of section 5.1
essentially makes changes that I already published.  Please see:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa/200202/msg00070.html

 I haven't checked everything, but I made lots of tedious editorial changes.
We need to compare versions and figure out how to recover.

Thanks,
Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arvola Chan" <arvola@tibco.com>
To: <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] My change contributions to the 1.09 draft


> Attached are my changes for the 1.09 draft. These include:
>
> - Update spec to allow for nesting of CanSend under CanReceive and vice
> versa.
>
> - Update PartyId example to use a type value that conforms to URN syntax.
>
> - Update uuid for the business process example to conform to URN syntax.
>
> - Add hyperlinks in the References section.
>
> - Update contact information section.
>
> - Add affiliation information to participant list.
>
> - Update appendices to refer to files included in the zip package.
>
> - Update document summary (section 5.1).
>
> - Replace inappropriate use of OPTIONAL keyword with suitable wording.
>
> Tony/Dale:
>
> I tried refreshing the Table of Contents. For some reason, appendices E &
F
> do not show up properly in the TOC. Could this be because we have modified
> the titles of the appendices?
>
> There are also a couple of issues I like to discuss during tomorrow's CC,
if
> possible:
>
> 1. Can section 8.2 on SchemaLocation attribute be eliminated?
>
> 2. Under the PartyInfo element, do we need to include a packageId
attribute
> to identify the packaging to be used for non piggybacked MSH level
messages?
>
> 3. Do we need to beef up the discussions on ApplicationCertificateRef and
> ApplicationSecurityDetailsRef?
>