[ebxml-msg] First editorial issues on 1.09

David,

 

In a quick read of 1.09, I've noticed a few things we could 
get started on resolving.  Some are rather picky (sorry).

  
The text in section 1.3 has not moved into Part 1.  This 
  is not introductory material but the first plank in the standard we're 
  defining.  During the meeting last week, we agreed (after little 
  discussion) to move this material later in the document.  This should 
  primarily be a renumbering of the section to a new section 2 just after the 
  Part 1. title.

  
The new text does not resolve issues Arvola raised in the 
  week prior to our meeting with regards to the SOAP Fault element and revolving 
  which message was in error.  I suggested (in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200111/msg00211.html)

  
    
"Note: A SOAP Fault element on its own may not provide the 
    requesting MSH with the context necessary to identify the message in 
    error.  An MSH returning a SOAP Fault should include ebXML 
    MessageHeader and ErrorList SOAP extensions in the same SOAP message.  
    This would be especially useful when the error is returned 
    asynchronously."

  
but don't see it in the document.

  
Please search the document for the word "that".  Almost 
  all instances (especially in the phrase "that is" which can be globally 
  deleted with allowance for commas) can be removed.

  
Most references to top level sections should refer to a 
  specific sub-section.  For example, references to section 4 occur when 
  the issue is security, errors, some specific element, et cetera.

  
It's up to you whether the document uses a comma prior to 
  "and" and "or" but the current document is not consistent in this 
  respect.  It doesn't appear commas are added for "more complex" sentences 
  for example.

  
A bit more on errors should be primarily editorial: The 
  current text is inconsistent with respect to what error should occur under 
  different situations.  For example, a conflict with the CPA is handled 
  using an Inconsistent Error but the description of Inconsistent doesn't cover 
  anything except elements and attributes in the document at hand.  
  Specific inconsistencies (such as duplicateElimination in 7.4.1) are sometimes 
  handled using a NotSupported error.

Perhaps this last point isn't an editorial issue?  We're 
requiring a specific and inconsistent processing order at the receiving 
MSH.  Most issues around features supported by the MSH are captured in the 
CPA.  Whenever we see "NotSupported" meaning a feature was requested the 
recipient couldn't handle, an "Inconsistent" error would be just as 
appropriate.  At the moment, the order is 1) check support for 
duplicateElimination and a few other things 2) check CPA 3) recheck CPA against 
requested features (even if they're entirely unsupported).

 

It's up to an enterprise how free they want to be with their 
supported feature list.  A worried company with a public ebXML service 
might report everything as inconsistent (with a default CPA they've published to 
the world).  We shouldn't preclude that mode of operation.  I'd 
recommend allowing either error in all situations.  The easiest way to do 
that would be to use "Inconsistent" throughout the document but include 
explanatory material in 4.2 stating that many inconsistencies with a CPA ("as 
described elsewhere in this document") may also result in a NotSupported 
error.

 

thanx,

    doug