[ebxml-cppa] "IMPLIED" keyword

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

Further thought:

In many cases, I think that the text in the CPPA spec is using the word
IMPLIED as a circumlocution for "optional".  Aside from the specific case
of invocationLimit and concurrentConversations, where the correct word
seems to be REQUIRED, IMPLIED in a DTD carries the notion that it's up to
the XML application to figure out what to do if the attribute is missing,
which is more than just "optional".  For cases where the attribute might or
might not be present, we still don't want to use the word OPTIONAL because
if its RFC2119 implications for implementers. We will need a different
circumlocution such as explicitily stating something like "(cardinality 0
or more).

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
*************************************************************************************
----- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 10/02/2002 11:40 AM -----
                                                                                                                                              
                      Martin W Sachs                                                                                                          
                                               To:       ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org                                                      
                      10/02/2002 11:29         cc:                                                                                            
                      AM                       From:     Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                                      
                                               Subject:  "IMPLIED" keyword                                                                    
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                              



We may have a problem with the use of the IMPLIED keyword to describe
attribute values in the text.  I ran into a specific case (below) which
makes me wonder whether it is correct to talk about IMPLIED for attributes
when the validating document is a schema rather than a DTD. Is there any
way of expressing the equivalent of IMPLIED in a schema?

The specific case is the invocationLimit and concurrentConversations
attributes of the ConversationConstraints element of the CPA.  The text in
section 9.5 is "an IMPLIED invocationLimit attribute" and "an IMPLIED
conversationConstraints attribute".

The CPPA Schema states:
      <attribute name="invocationLimit" type="int"/>
      <attribute name="concurrentConversations" type="int"/>

Since both minOccurs and maxOccurs default to the value "1", it seems to me
that these attributes are both REQUIRED, with no default stated.

If I am right, someone should go through the text, check for any attributes
described as IMPLIED, and correct the text to conform to the Schema.

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