[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] Re: Need missing figures
Thanks Farrukh. The listing issue is still confusing. In the v3.0-os the line number is 1871, and the text under the example is: "Listing 2: Example of Stored Query Invocation." The section is 6.3.2.1 Specifying Query Invocation Parameters. I just want to make sure that this is the same thing as the issue, since the text in the issue is "Listing 2: Example of AdhocQueryRequest to a Parameterized Ad hoc Query" . Sorry to be such a pain! Kathryn Kathryn Breininger Boeing Library Services 425-965-0182 phone -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh S. Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:07 PM To: Breininger, Kathryn R Cc: ebXML Regrep Subject: Re: [regrep] Re: Need missing figures Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: > Farrukh, > Can you point out for me which document (RIM or RS) and on which line > numbers these two item appear: > > * The stored query given in "Listing 2: Example of > AdhocQueryRequest to a Parameterized Ad hoc Query" should be replaced > with the one in the > /cvsroot/ebxmlrr/omar/misc/samples/StoredQueryInvocationExample.xml > Above is on line 1850 in ebRS (search for "Listing 2") The replacement listing can bet gotten from: <http://ebxmlrr.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/ebxmlrr/omar/misc/samples /StoredQueryInvocationExample.xml> > * "A Submitter MAY optionally supply the id attribute for > submitted objects" the paragraph suggests that id attribute of > Identifiable is optional when it is actually not so according to > rim.xsd (from Andrzej). The rim.xsd is correct and paragraph is wrong > (from Farrukh). > See section 5.1.2 line 1143: Old Text: "A Submitter MAY optionally supply the id attribute for submitted objects. If the Submitter supplies the id and it is a valid URN and does not conflict with the id of an existing RegistryObject within the home registry then the registry MUST honor the Submitter-supplied id value and use it as the value of the id attribute of the object in the registry. If the id is not a valid URN then the registry MUST return an InvalidRequestException. If the id conflicts with the id of an existing RegistryObject within the home registry then the registry MUST return InvalidRequestException for an UpdateObjectsRequest and treat it as an Update action for a SubmitObjectsRequest. If the client does not supply an id for a submitted object then the registry MUST generate a universally unique id. A registry generated id value MUST conform to the format of a URN that specifies a DCE 128 bit UUID as specified in [UUID]: (e.g. urn:uuid:a2345678-1234-1234-1234567890" New Text: "A Submitter MUST supply the id attribute for submitted objects. If the Submitter supplies the id and it is a valid URN then the registry MUST honor the Submitter-supplied id value and use it as the value of the id attribute of the object in the registry. If the id is not a valid URN then the registry MUST treat it as a temporary id and replace it, and all references to it within the request, with a registry generated universally unique id. A registry generated universally unique id value MUST conform to the format of a URN that specifies a DCE 128 bit UUID as specified in [UUID]: (e.g. urn:uuid:a2345678-1234-1234-1234567890" Above text removes the inconsistency with rim.xsd. Recall in such cases we state that XML Schema file always wins over spec verbeage. So the spec was in a tolerable state with respect to this issue. We should fix it nevertheless. Thanks. -- Regards, Farrukh Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]