[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Re: New Schema
David: Thanks for your feedback. Please see my comments inline and the attached XSD file. I will wait for the schema to stabilize before requesting Jeffrey Lomas to post it again. Regards, -Arvola -----Original Message----- From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:35 AM Subject: RE: New Schema >Thanks Arvola, and thank you for the comments. I will work through them today. > >I notice some things in the new schema > > the tns name needs to be updated with your new name. Agreed. > In MessageHeader, From, To, CPAId, ConversationId, Service, > Action, MessageData are required That's already the case. An element is required unless there is a minOccurs="0" clause. > In MessageData, MessageId and Timestamp are required Already no minOccurs="0" specified. > DeliveryReceiptRequested instead of DeliveryReceiptAckRequested Agreed. > duplicateElimination should be boolean not tns:boolean Agreed. > remove tns:id and tns:version on TraceHeaderList (it's inside Via) Agreed. > need a tns:version attribute on Error Since Error is a sub-element of ErrorList and the latter already has a tns:version attribute, I don't think a tns:version attribute is needed at the Error level. Do you agree that the convention is to have a version attribute only for children of soap:Header and soap:Body? > Service & Action have been removed from Via Agreed. > DeliveryReceipt & Acknowledgment, RefToMessageId is required Already no minOccurs="0" specified. > soap:actor on AckRequested and Acknowledgment need defaults (ToPartyMSH) > does this mean they are not required? I am adding http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/ToPartyMSH as default for the actor attribute in AckRequested and Acknowledgment. I am also adding http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/nextMSH as default for the actor attribute in Via. Please note that I am using www.oasis-open.org instead of oasis-open.org to be consistent with what are already in the message header schema. This is in conflict with sections 2.2.10 and 2.2.11. Yes, if a default is specified for an attribute, then that attribute can be omitted. > remove rmm.type Agreed. > remove signedUnsigned.type Agreed. > add Role child element to From and To Agreed. > >I think most of this stuff is just being picky. Looks really good. > >Thanks again, > >David. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:23 PM >To: David Fischer >Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: New Schema > > >David: > >I have updated the message header schema and requested the web master to >post the file > >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/draft-msg-header-01.x s >d > >(Please see the carbon copy message to the ebxml-msg alias of my request to >Jeffrey Lomas if the posted file is not yet assessible.) > >In the course of this exercise, I have found a number of inconsistencies in >the 1.05 draft. Sections 2.2.7 (id attributes -- I think this should be >renamed id attribute to be consistent with the sibling sections), 2.2.8 >(version attribute), 2.2.9 (SOAP mustUnderstand attribute) indicate that the >id attribute is optional, the version attribute is required, and the SOAP >mustUnderstand attribute is required. I am assuming that the above rules >apply only to ebXML extension elements that are the immediate children of >SOAP:Header. Thus, it is OK for the Manifest element not to have a SOAP >mustUnderstand attribute. Similarly, since TraceHeaderList is not a child of >SOAP:Header, its version attribute would not be required. > >Based on the above assumptions, I suggest the following clarifications and >editorial changes to the spec: > a.. Sections 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 should indicate that the SOAP actor >attribute is used only in the AckRequested, Acknowledgment, and Via >elements. > b.. Always list the attributes id, version, mustUnderstand, and actor >(where applicable) in front of all other elements or attributes when >describing an extension element. > c.. For each SOAP module, consistently reiterate that the id attibute is >optional, the version attribute is required, the SOAP mustUnderstand >attribute is required. > d.. Section 3.1.6.4 should indicate that the TimeToLive element is >optional. > e.. Section 4.2.2 should indicate the requirement/optionality of >attributes. > f.. Section 4.2.2.2.5 should indicate that the location attribute is >optional. > g.. Section 4.2.2.2.6 should be renamed xml:lang attribute. The attribute >should be indicated as being optional. > h.. Section 6.1 should include a SOAP mustUnderstand attribute and show >the requirement/optionality of each attribute. > i.. Section 6.2 should indicate that DeliveryReceipt has a required SOAP >mustUnderstand attribute. > j.. Section 6.2.2 should indicate that the Timestamp element is required. > k.. Section 7.3.1 should indicate the requirement/optionality of >attributes in AckRequested. > l.. Section 7.3.3 should indicate the requirement/optionality of >attributes in Acknowledgment. > m.. Section 7.3.3.3 should indicate Timestamp is required. The required >RefToMessageId element should be described after Section 7.3.3.3. > n.. Section 8.2 is missing a SOAP mustUnderstand attribute and statement >about the requirement/optionality of attributes. > o.. Section 8.3 is missing the version and SOAP mustUnderstand attributes >and statement about the requirement/optionality of attributes. > p.. There used to be Service and Action elements under Via. Why are they >missing from section 11.1? >In general, I would prefer to see a clear indication of the >requirement/optionality of each sub-element/attribute, in the overview >description of an element, rather than inferring that information from the >subsequent descriptions. > >-Arvola > -----Original Message----- > From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> > To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> > Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 12:26 PM > Subject: New Schema > > > Arvola, > > Since the group voted to accept v1.05, could you go ahead and >validate/post the new schema (I tried to make the appropriate changes)? > > Thanks, > > David Fischer > Drummond Group. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC