Ooops. . . Yes you are right on Error -- no need for a version but there is
also no need for id attribute, need to delete.
If lack of minOccurs="0" means required then lots of items need to have this
feature (like all the id attributes). Why would we ever have use="required"?
Yes, we need to be consistent on oasis-open.org or www.oasis-open.org. I prefer
the shorter, just because it is shorter. Both work.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:01 AM
To: David Fischer
Cc:
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Re: New Schema
David:
Thanks for your feedback. Please see my comments inline and the
attached XSD file. I will wait for the schema to stabilize before
requesting Jeffrey Lomas to post it again.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <>
To: Arvola Chan <>
Cc: <>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:35 AM
Subject: RE: New Schema
>Thanks Arvola, and thank you for the comments. I will work through them
today.
>
>I notice some things in the new schema
>
> the tns name needs to be updated with your new name.
Agreed.
> In MessageHeader, From, To, CPAId, ConversationId, Service,
> Action, MessageData are required
That's already the case. An element is required unless there is a
minOccurs="0" clause.
> In MessageData, MessageId and Timestamp are required
Already no minOccurs="0" specified.
> DeliveryReceiptRequested instead of DeliveryReceiptAckRequested
Agreed.
> duplicateElimination should be boolean not tns:boolean
Agreed.
> remove tns:id and tns:version on TraceHeaderList (it's inside Via)
Agreed.
> need a tns:version attribute on Error
Since Error is a sub-element of ErrorList and the latter already has a
tns:version attribute, I don't think a tns:version attribute is needed at
the
Error level. Do you agree that the convention is to have a version
attribute only for children of soap:Header and soap:Body?
> Service & Action have been removed from Via
Agreed.
> DeliveryReceipt & Acknowledgment, RefToMessageId is required
Already no minOccurs="0" specified.
> soap:actor on AckRequested and Acknowledgment need defaults (ToPartyMSH)
> does this mean they are not required?
I am adding http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/ToPartyMSH as
default for the actor attribute in AckRequested and Acknowledgment.
I am also adding http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/nextMSH as
default for the actor attribute in Via.
Please note that I am using www.oasis-open.org instead of oasis-open.org to
be consistent with what are already in the message header schema. This is in
conflict with sections 2.2.10 and 2.2.11.
Yes, if a default is specified for an attribute, then that attribute can be
omitted.
> remove rmm.type
Agreed.
> remove signedUnsigned.type
Agreed.
> add Role child element to From and To
Agreed.
>
>I think most of this stuff is just being picky. Looks really good.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>David.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:23 PM
>To: David Fischer
>Cc:
>Subject: Re: New Schema
>
>
>David:
>
>I have updated the message header schema and requested the web master to
>post the file
>
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/draft-msg-header-01.x
s
>d
>
>(Please see the carbon copy message to the ebxml-msg alias of my request to
>Jeffrey Lomas if the posted file is not yet assessible.)
>
>In the course of this exercise, I have found a number of inconsistencies in
>the 1.05 draft. Sections 2.2.7 (id attributes -- I think this should be
>renamed id attribute to be consistent with the sibling sections), 2.2.8
>(version attribute), 2.2.9 (SOAP mustUnderstand attribute) indicate that
the
>id attribute is optional, the version attribute is required, and the SOAP
>mustUnderstand attribute is required. I am assuming that the above rules
>apply only to ebXML extension elements that are the immediate children of
>SOAP:Header. Thus, it is OK for the Manifest element not to have a SOAP
>mustUnderstand attribute. Similarly, since TraceHeaderList is not a child
of
>SOAP:Header, its version attribute would not be required.
>
>Based on the above assumptions, I suggest the following clarifications and
>editorial changes to the spec:
> a.. Sections 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 should indicate that the SOAP actor
>attribute is used only in the AckRequested, Acknowledgment, and Via
>elements.
> b.. Always list the attributes id, version, mustUnderstand, and actor
>(where applicable) in front of all other elements or attributes when
>describing an extension element.
> c.. For each SOAP module, consistently reiterate that the id attibute is
>optional, the version attribute is required, the SOAP mustUnderstand
>attribute is required.
> d.. Section 3.1.6.4 should indicate that the TimeToLive element is
>optional.
> e.. Section 4.2.2 should indicate the requirement/optionality of
>attributes.
> f.. Section 4.2.2.2.5 should indicate that the location attribute is
>optional.
> g.. Section 4.2.2.2.6 should be renamed xml:lang attribute. The attribute
>should be indicated as being optional.
> h.. Section 6.1 should include a SOAP mustUnderstand attribute and show
>the requirement/optionality of each attribute.
> i.. Section 6.2 should indicate that DeliveryReceipt has a required SOAP
>mustUnderstand attribute.
> j.. Section 6.2.2 should indicate that the Timestamp element is required.
> k.. Section 7.3.1 should indicate the requirement/optionality of
>attributes in AckRequested.
> l.. Section 7.3.3 should indicate the requirement/optionality of
>attributes in Acknowledgment.
> m.. Section 7.3.3.3 should indicate Timestamp is required. The required
>RefToMessageId element should be described after Section 7.3.3.3.
> n.. Section 8.2 is missing a SOAP mustUnderstand attribute and statement
>about the requirement/optionality of attributes.
> o.. Section 8.3 is missing the version and SOAP mustUnderstand attributes
>and statement about the requirement/optionality of attributes.
> p.. There used to be Service and Action elements under Via. Why are they
>missing from section 11.1?
>In general, I would prefer to see a clear indication of the
>requirement/optionality of each sub-element/attribute, in the overview
>description of an element, rather than inferring that information from the
>subsequent descriptions.
>
>-Arvola
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Fischer <>
> To: Arvola Chan <>
> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 12:26 PM
> Subject: New Schema
>
>
> Arvola,
>
> Since the group voted to accept v1.05, could you go ahead and
>validate/post the new schema (I tried to make the appropriate changes)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
>
>
