[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Additional feedback to ebMS2.0 and CPPA
[snip] Cliff> I think what Iwasa is talking about here is the same confusion that happened in the Drummond interopt. When sending/receiving a message, the MSH tries to get the role for the partyId for the given To/From element. The problem is what is the value of the "role" in the MSH to/from element from the CPA. Assuming below is the XML for the role in the CPA: <tp:Role tp:name="buyer" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://ebxml.org/processes/buySell.xml#buyer"/> Some implementers took the "name" as the role to insert/verify on a ebxml message while some took the href. The CollaborationRole/Role/@name attribute's value is, I think, what is to be used as the role value. The href is part of a simple xlink, and provides a location where the Role value is defined in a process specification (which probably is a BPSS instance). I checked the appendix F ( gives the correspondence between CPA and MS) and the MS Role element is said to correspond with the CPA Role element. That may be a little imprecise but when the BPSS instance has a URI in its attribute, then the role will be a URI. It had not occurred to me that the href, whose function is just a location reference, might be thought to provide the value... In general, the location href makes use of the nameId. For example, v 1.05 has an example with: <Role name="Dealer" nameID="122A38DA3"/> The href might then be http://ebxml.org/processes/buySell.xml#122A38DA3; maybe that example might have brought out the contrast better. The coordination that is perhaps missing is between MS and BPSS. BPSS only requires a string and does not say that the Role/@name value should be a URI, while MS apparently says this value should be a URI. CPPA's use of href was definitely not meant to bridge this gap, as far as I know. Cliff> Personally, I thought it was the href since the MSH spec says this is "preferred to be a URI". However, we had to implement comparing against both. It would be nice if the spec was clear which value from the CPA should be used. ======== Cliff, I guess we did not foresee your interpretation. I will cross post this to our list for discussion. Thanks for your input. Once we actually become an OASIS standard we will be assembling the issue list for 2.0.1.. or whatever version comes next, and we can add this one on. Dale Moberg
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC