Re: <1.0 bug> action attribute in section 7.5.8.1

Hima:

There is currently no Role element/attribute in the ebXML message
header. I agree that using the BusinessTransactionActivity name
will suffice if the role information is either explicitly represented
in the header or is encoded into the Service element.

In general, I have heard comments about the inconsistent treatment
of name attributes in the BPSS spec. Some name attributes are
ID fields while others are not. I would prefer to see name attributes
that are of type ID be renamed nameID.

Regards,
-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Himagiri Mukkamala <>
To: Arvola Chan <>
Cc:  <>
Date: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: <1.0 bug> action attribute in section 7.5.8.1


><name> for BusinessTransactionActivity is required and
>that is the unique name in a collaboration for a transaction.
>
>Multiple BTAs could use the same BusinessTransaction
>
>Also, as the two roles play different sides of the BusinessTransaction,
>I'm assuming it would not cause problems for implementors of BSI
>to route the request to the right Business Collaboratoin.
>
>Hence we could use the name of BTA as the name of
>the action.
>
>Arvola Chan wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> >
>