Hima:
Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness issue w.r.t. the name
attribute.
RequestingTransactionActivity, RespondingTransactionActivity,
and BusinessTransactionActivity all have an optional nameID
attribute. I think the nameID attribute needs to be required. Let
me forward a copy of this request to the ebtwg mailing list.
I like to change my proposal to use the nameID of the
RequestingBusinessActivity and RespondingBusinessActivity
as the Action element in the corresponding ebXML messages.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Himagiri Mukkamala <>
To: Arvola Chan <>
Cc: <>
Date: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: <1.0 bug> action attribute in section 7.5.8.1
>Arvola,
>
>But the <name> attribute for RequestingBusinessActivity
>and RespondingBusinessActivity is implied.
>
>In this case does it make sense to use <name> attribute
>of BusinessTransactionActivity as the name of action.
>
>Also <name> of BusinessTransaction is not guaranteed
>to be unique. Using this as the "action" could pose
>problems for implementors of BSI
>
>-hima
>
>Arvola Chan wrote:
>
>> The action attribute should not be equated with the name
>> attribute of the desired BusinessTransaction. There are
>> two activities within a Business Transaction, a
>> RequestingBusinessActivity and a RespondingBusinessActivity.
>>
>> Depending on the direction of the message, the action
>> attribute should be set to equal the name of the
>> RequestingBusinessActivity or the name of the
>> RespondingBusinessActivity.
>>
>> Similarly, in section 7.3.7.4 xlink:href attribute, the link should be
>> to the corresponding RequestingBusinessActivity, or to the
>> corresponding RespondingBusinessActivity.
>>
>> -Arvola
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
