OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[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


My recollection was that Role was introduced so as to
a) support RosettaNet better and b) to make it easier to
map the incoming message to a process state in the
choreography (BPSS) referenced by the CPA.

I believe that "optional" in the case of Role was
referenced to its cardinality (e.g. a message need
not contain a Role element under To and From).

However, a receiving MSH would have to be able to
receive a message that contained this information.
It doesn't have to use it, but it cannot fault if
it gets one.

IMO, it is only optional w/r/t whether the application
choses to supply this information (and/or consume it)
it is NOT OPTIONAL to support from an implementation's
perspective. However, the *nature* of that support
is certainly up to the implementation/vendor beyond
the ability to receive a message containing said element.

That said, I don't believe that this is an OPTIONAL
issue but one of cardinality.

Cheers,

Chris

Martin W Sachs wrote:

> So you are saying that it is OK for a software vendor to decide not to
> implement the ROLE element.  Then each vendor has to supply a catalog
> stating which OPTIONAL elements he/she does not provide.  A customer has to
> check every vendor's catalog to make sure that the OPTIONAL elements that
> the customer requires are supported.  What if next month, the same customer
> discovers that he/she needs one more element that the newly purchased
> software doesn't support?
> 
> Of course I can't believe that that is what you really mean.  However a
> vendor that understands RFC2119 will interpret the MSG spec in exactly that
> way,  Use of OPTIONAL for a purpose other than to indicate that a vendor
> doesn't have to support this particular major feature can lead to an
> interoperability disaster.  One can eliminate the words OPTIONAL and MAY
> without changing any syntax or semantics.
> 
> 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 02/14/2002 12:08:25 AM
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Marty,  I don't disagree with your premise.  We do need to avoid the word
> OPTIONAL unless that is really what we mean.
> 
> Doug/Chris' Issue 15 concerns OPTIONAL in relation to the Role element.  At
> the
> bottom of the issue, it also says there are other instances...
> 
> I just went through the document again and I don't disagree with any of the
> instances where we use OPTIONAL.  Ping/Pong (w/ or w/o signature), Message
> Status, MessageOrder are all truly OPTIONAL items for implementers.  The
> only
> one I'm not sure about concerns Transfer Encoding on HTTP (I'm too lazy to
> research this at this time of night).
> 
> Outside of the definitions, we use the word *OPTIONAL* 13 times and
> *optional* 3
> times (twice concerning the id element -- which maybe is not truly
> optional).
> 
> Perhaps the problem is in section 1.1.1 and our definition of OPTIONAL?  It
> says:
> 
>    ... An implementation which does not include a
>    particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate
>    with another implementation which does include the
>    option, though perhaps with reduced functionality ...
> 
> which we do by supplying the NotSupported Error.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:18 PM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> I gave in too easily.  The subject line says " Issue 15: Use of the word
> OPTIONAL".  The text of issue 15 is shown below.  So either the subject
> line is referencing the wrong issue or the discussion is about the word
> "OPTIONAL" and not about the cardinality of the Role element.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> 
> <issue>
>   <issue-num>15</issue-num>
>   <title>RFC2119 usage</title>
>   <locus>line 784</locus>
>   <section>3.1.1.2 PartyId element</section>
>   <priority>editorial</priority>
>   <topic>spec</topic>
>   <status>Active</status>
>   <originator><a href='mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com'>Chris
> Ferris</a></originator>
>   <responsible></responsible>
>   <description><a href
> ='http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200201/msg00130.html'>[see
> email]</a> use of the term OPTIONAL here may be confusing given the
> conformance statement. Suggest that this be rephrased as follows:  The Role
> element, if present, ... (technical/editorial)  Other instances of OPTIONAL
> where ordinality is meant:<p/>
>  * 500 (MIME start parameter)  * 1801, 1814 (Signature element in Message
> Status Request &amp; Response)  * 1822, 1842 (StatusRequest and
> StatusResponse elements; really, the service is OPTIONAL)  * 1905, 1955
> (Signature element in Ping &amp; Pong)</description>
>   <proposal>make suggested change</proposal>
>   <resolution>Disagree.</resolution>
> </issue>
> 
> ********************************************************************************
> 
> *****
> 
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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