Re: [ebxml-msg] Additional feedback to ebMS2.0 and CPPA

[iwasa <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Doug,

Sorry for this late response. I was not following the
discussion after I posted the issues.

Here is my comments:


> > 1. xlink:type should be REQUIRED.
> >    In detail, XLINK specification defines that xlink:type
> >    to be REQUIRED, but ebXML MS spec defines that
> >    SOAPBody-Manifest-Reference-xlink:type
> >    is OPTIONAL. So ebXML MS spec should
> >    make it mandatory to conform to XLINK.
>
> The xlink:type value MUST be provided in the infoset resulting from
parsing an
> XML instance using the provided schema.  In our schema, the
> Reference@xlink:type attribute is fixed, meaning it is optional in the XML
> instance but required in the infoset (and will always have the value
> "simple").  Section 5.3 of the XLink Recommendation uses exactly the same
> schema mechanism.  I don't believe a change is required here.

We felt it was a little bit tricky, but it would be OK with us
to keep the current spec as is for that reason.

> > 2. The format of start parameter in the sample of
> >     section "2.1.2 Message Packaging" is wrong.
> >     Currently the spec has:
> >          start=messagepackage-123@example.com
> >     But it should be :
> >         start="<messagepackage-123@example.com>"
> >     The sample of "B.2.2 Sending ebXML Service
> >     messages over HTTP" is correct.
>
> Agreed.  Isn't it fun tracing everything back to RFC 2822?
>
> > 3. It is ambiguous which value you should use
> >     for Role element under From and To element
> >     in the MessageHeader.
> >     CollaborationProtocolAgreement/PartyInfo/CollaborationRole/Role@name
> >                     or
> >
CollaborationProtocolAgreement/PartyInfo/CollaborationRole/Role@xlink:href
> >     There is description that URI is recommended for the value
> >     but sample of the CPPA specification is using the other one:
> >     @name : "Buyer"
> >     @xlink:href : "http://www.rosettanet.org/processes/3A4.xml#Buyer"
>
> I'm not entirely certain what the issue is here.  Are you commenting on
> another ambiguous interaction between the CPP/A or BPSS documents and an
ebXML
> Message conforming to those requirements, something similar to our earlier
> discussions around the Service and Action values?  If I remember
correctly,
> those earlier discussions were resolved (after discussion between the TC's
and
> with UN/CEFACT) in the CPP/A or BPSS specifications.  Our current
> specification certainly does not describe the specific source in a BPSS or
> CPP/A instance for the Service or Action values.  Are you suggesting a
> different approach for the Role element value or am I missing the real
issue?

As Cliff helped me to explain the issue, it seems
to be clarified now.
There were some interoperability problem
when one company is using a name and the other is
using xlink:href. But spec doesn't describe which
value we have to use. So we just need a clarification.

Thanks,

Iwasa


>

> ...
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Iwasa
> > Fujitsu Limited
>
> and, thanks to you,
>     doug
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>