[ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] Additional feedback to ebMS2.0 and CPPA

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

[snip]
Cliff> I think what Iwasa is talking about here is the same confusion
that happened
in the Drummond interopt. When sending/receiving a message, the MSH
tries to
get the role for the partyId for the given To/From element. The problem
is
what is the value of the "role" in the MSH to/from element from the CPA.
Assuming below is the XML for the role in the CPA:

<tp:Role tp:name="buyer" xlink:type="simple"
xlink:href="http://ebxml.org/processes/buySell.xml#buyer"/>

Some implementers took the "name" as the role to insert/verify on a
ebxml
message while some took the href.

The CollaborationRole/Role/@name attribute's value is, I think,
what is to be used as the role value. The href is part of a
simple xlink, and provides a location where the Role value is
defined in a process specification (which probably is a BPSS
instance). I checked the appendix F ( gives the correspondence
between CPA and MS) and the MS Role element is said to correspond
with the CPA Role element. That may be a little imprecise but
when the BPSS instance has a URI in its attribute, 
then the role will be a URI. It had not occurred to me
that the href, whose function is just a location reference,
might be thought to provide the value... In general, the
location href makes use of the nameId. For example, v 1.05
has an example with:
<Role name="Dealer" nameID="122A38DA3"/> 
The href might then be http://ebxml.org/processes/buySell.xml#122A38DA3;
maybe that example might have brought out the contrast better.
The coordination that is perhaps missing is between MS
and BPSS. BPSS only requires a string and does not
say that the Role/@name value should be a URI, while MS
apparently says this value should be a URI. CPPA's use
of href was definitely not meant to bridge this gap, as
far as I know.


Cliff>
Personally, I thought it was the href since the MSH spec says this is
"preferred to be a URI". However, we had to implement comparing against
both. It would be nice if the spec was clear which value from the CPA
should
be used.

========
Cliff, I guess we did not foresee your interpretation. I will cross
post this to our list for discussion. Thanks for your input. Once
we actually become an OASIS standard we will be assembling the
issue list for 2.0.1.. or whatever version comes next, and we
can add this one on. 

Dale Moberg