[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i093 cardinality replacements
I don't like 4. I'm not sure I understand 5, it seems to remove the 2119 language regarding cardinality but it doesn't seem to work for the content. So this example: /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Identifier This REQUIRED element MUST contain an absolute URI conformant with RFC3986 [URI] that uniquely identifies the offered Sequence. Would become: /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Identifier The cardinality of this element is 1. When present this element MUST contain an absolute URI conformant with RFC3986 [URI] that uniquely identifies the offered Sequence. I really dislike 6. -----Original Message----- From: Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM [mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:58 PM To: Gilbert Pilz Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i093 cardinality replacements Gil, A couple of other alternatives come to mind: 4) "The cardinality of this element {within its parent|within an XYZ {request|response}} is {0 or more|0 or 1|1 {or more}?}." 5) "The cardinality of this element is {0 or more|0 or 1|1 {or more}?}." This option relies on an implication that "cardinality" is scoped to presence within its parent &c. 6) nuking these sentences and relying on the exemplars I believe this option was poorly received during our call / chat today. I kind of like (5). thanx, doug On 18/05/06 17:01, Gilbert Pilz wrote: > As of WD-12 our spec has a number of explanations of sub-elements with > the following pattern: > > /wsrm:Foo/wsrm:Baz > This [REQUIRED | OPTIONAL] element . . > > There are actually a number of different cases under which this > pattern is used. > > 1) Describing a singly-nested sub-element within a message element. > Example: /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:AcksTo > > 2) Describing a singly-nested sub-element within a header element. > Example: /wsrm:AckRequested/wsrm:Identifier > > 3) Describing a doubly-nested sub-element within a top-level message > element when the parent element is optional. Example: > /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Identifier > > There are other cases like doubly-nested attributes within top-level > header elements who's parent elements are optional, etc. but you get > the point. > > > I have used the following patterns to address these cases: > > 1) The RM [Source | Destination] [MUST | MAY] include this element in > any Foo message it sends. > > (Note the use of the informal "Foo message" as shorthand for "SOAP > envelope that includes the <wsrm:Foo> element in the body of that > envelope") > > 2) An RM [Source | Destination] that includes a <wsrm:Foo> header > block in a SOAP envelope [MUST | MAY] include this element in that > header block. > > 3) An RM [Source | Destination] that includes a <wsrm:Baz> element > within a Foo message [MUST | MAY] include this element as a child of > the <wsrm:Baz> element. > > If anyone in the group has any suggestions on some better phrasing for > these patterns I would be more than happy to hear them. > > Also, with respect to the idea that the current cardinality statements > are somehow clear to the reader, take a second look at the example for > case (3): > > /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Identifier > This REQUIRED element MUST contain an absolute URI conformant with > RFC3986 [URI] that uniquely identifies the offered Sequence. > > What it *means* is that if you include an Offer in your CreateSequence > then you MUST include the Identifier in that Offer but all it *says* > is "This REQUIRED element . . ." This doesn't seem very clear to me at all. > > - gp >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]