Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: New Schema

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>]

David,

minOccurs='1' == REQUIRED, but this applies only
to elements. Attributes can have a use='required'.

Cheers,

Chris

David Fischer wrote:

> Ooops. . .  Yes you are right on Error -- no need for a version but there is
> also no need for id attribute, need to delete.
> 
> If lack of minOccurs="0" means required then lots of items need to have this
> feature (like all the id attributes).  Why would we ever have use="required"?
> 
> Yes, we need to be consistent on oasis-open.org or www.oasis-open.org.  I prefer
> the shorter, just because it is shorter.  Both work.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:01 AM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>