[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS 2.0 Role fixups: discussion topic Nov 17 teleconference for CPPA
ActionContext2, like ActionContext, is optional. For very simple BPSS instances, where the same role name values occur under ExternalRole, under the BusinessCollaboration and in the @currentRoleRef in the BTA Performs binding, the Role value declared as a child value under CollaborationRole will be the only value needed (when the values "Buyer" and "Seller" are the only ones really needed, for example). This is how BPSS 1.x instances worked. So that was my rationale for separating concerns and notational burdens. I agree with you on your simplicity point. It is often simpler to do the same thing for every case. But I still think that at this early stage it may be worthwhile continuing to allow ActionContext to be omitted. Anyway this is a design tradeoff point so let's consider the issue Friday. >a. When the BTA/Performs/@currentRoleRef refers to a BC/Role whose @name >value is the same as CollaborationRole/Role, then it is not Required >that there be any ActionContext2 information about Role to indicate the >Role value in context. The implementation Should, however, supply the >(unchanged) value within an ActionContext2 element. > >b. When the BTA/Performs/@currentRoleRef refers to a BC/Role whose @name >value that differs from the CollaborationRole/Role, then it is Required >that there be any ActionContext2 information about Role to indicate the >Role value in context. > > > Dale, in general, it may be simpler to require Action Context2 information regardless. That way, the information may be redundant but the behavior required the same. What do you think?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]