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=
> > But it should be :
> > start="<>"
> > 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>
>
