I guess it was not just me that was unclear since Chris just emailed this:
> supposed to be the role URI, not the name
> Cheers,
> Christopher Ferris
> Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email:
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
Is this an item in dispute?
Cliff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Moberg [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: Cliff Collins; Doug Bunting; iwasa
> Cc: ebXML Messaging; Cppalist (E-mail)
> 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
>
>
