[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David, OK, I misunderstood as did others. Just one example of the confusion that can take place by using RFC2119 words for purposes not covered by RFC2119. 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 ************************************************************************************* David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/13/2002 06:29:54 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL Yes Marty, I understand. This issue is trying to change the Messaging Specification functionality to REQUIRE that everyone implement Role and allow it to be in the message From/To zero or one time. This is NOT what we agreed to. I also understand this has implications for CPA, which I have already discussed with you on a CPA conference call. I suppose we could ask the implementers we know of if this will mean a change for their code? What about implementors we don't know about? We have already voted not to change functionality. The point is that we added Role as OPTIONAL and now, after the last bell, we are trying to change. David. -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:07 PM To: David Fischer Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL David, We are trying to say that "OPTIONAL" or "optional" tells a vendor that the vendor need not implement the feature (per RFC2119). That's not what is wanted for Role. You have to mean "optional" without saying "optional". There aren't any really good synonyms of "optional" ("discretionary" has been suggested). You also have to mean "optional" without saying "may" either, for the same reason. For elements, the CPPA spec avoids "optional" and "may" by mentioning the cardinality instead. Example: "The Role element can be included zero or one time." 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 ******************************************************************************** ***** David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/13/2002 04:24:26 PM To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> cc: ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL Chris, When you proposed the Role element you said it was OPTIONAL and the team agreed to add it as OPTIONAL. When you proposed this element (see original issue 128 -- attached) you said: Issue Add Role as an optional element within both From and To elements. Role should be indpendently wihtin the messaging spec with a non-normative note that describes how it relates to the BPSS spec. The minutes from 11-05-01 again say Role is OPTIONAL. Why are we changing now? Role has always been OPTIONAL, let's leave it alone. Regards, David. -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:18 PM Cc: ebXML Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL +1 I think it critical that we leave no room for doubt as to our intent. The Role element is not optional, it has a cardinality of zero or one. Cheers, Chris Arvola Chan wrote: > +1. > > -Arvola > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com> > To: ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:10 PM > Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL > > > David has disagreed with Chris' statement that OPTIONAL is misused > (according > to 2119) in a number of contexts. The basic issue here is a conflict > between > something that may or may not appear in an instance of an ebXML message and > something that must or may be implemented by a compliant ebMS system. In > the > specified uses of the word OPTIONAL, the first is meant but our document > conventions (section 1.1.1) restricts us to using OPTIONAL only when the > second is intended. I would strongly recommend making the change Chris > suggested. > > thanx, > doug > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC