OASIS Emergency Management TC

Folks,

Based on Neil's difficulties with Web service compilers, Gary Timm's message, and on Rex Brook's response asking for a solution that does not break the ability to make the change a 1.2 version vice forcing 2.0 , I decided maybe we should in fact look at a solution that does work as a 1.2 change.  We have tested this with out a problem and know that it works.   The basic concept is to encapsulate the <any> tags within optional identified tags to isolate them from multi-namespace issues.  (For backward compatibility we could also leave the current 1.1 <any> tag in place, but we would not make any use of it.)

I know it is late in the game.  But the following change would make signing work in web services and middleware validation points far more effectively than the current structure of CAP 1.2.  That and a requirement that message signature use XML canonical form (as required in the DE) and we could guarantee success across the network. Neil has tested this change and it does work.


Respectfully,

Gary


Begin forwarded message:


From: Bourgeois, Neil 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:13 PM
To: Gary Ham
Subject: CAPv1.2 Web-Service Implementation Challenges
Gary,
We are experiencing Web-service implementation issues with the CAPv1.2 schema. DM-OPEN is currently using Oracle 10g application server and Oracle 10g assembler to generate Web-Services.  DM-OPEN is also leveraging JAXB2 and its capabilities in binding XML to Java classes.
Here are the following issues:
1) With the two <any.../> tags the Oracle Assembler generates a single Alert object as a SOAP Element. This will require a significant amount of rework to upgrade the current CAPv1.1 Web-Service to CAPv1.2.
2) JAXB will not compile. Get response that "Any element has already been defined".
Recommendation to resolve these issue is to place <any.../> elements within their own element. This is also a more mature schema structure.
Have similar Web-Service implementation issues been experienced by other developers?
Neil Bourgeois
Cell: 703-732-6331
 
 
Original Schema:
        </element>
                <any minOccurs = "0" maxOccurs = "unbounded" namespace = "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" processContents = "lax"/>
                <any minOccurs = "0" namespace = "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmlenc#" processContents = "lax"/>
      </sequence>
    </complexType>
  </element>
  <element name = "valueName" type = "xs:string"/>
  <element name = "value" type = "xs:string"/>
</schema>
Recommended Change:
        </element>
        <element ref="cap:Signature"/>
        <element ref="cap:Encoding"/>
      </sequence>
    </complexType>
  </element>
  <element name="Signature">
  <complexType>
    <sequence>
      <any minOccurs = "0" maxOccurs = "unbounded" namespace = "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" processContents = "lax"/>
    </sequence>
  </complexType>
  </element>
  <element name="Encoding">
  <complexType>
    <sequence>
      <any minOccurs = "0" namespace = "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmlenc#" processContents = "lax"/>
    </sequence>
  </complexType>
  </element>
  <element name = "valueName" type = "xs:string"/>
  <element name = "value" type = "xs:string"/>
</schema>
 

Gary Ham
Systems Architect
FEMA Disaster Management Program
703-899-6241



Gary Ham
http://grandpaham.com
703-899-6241

Thanks for the prompt reply, Gary H,

I read through the recommended change, and although I would like to hear 
what Art, Jacob, Don M, Jeff W, Dave E and Lee T think, along with any 
others who wish to pipe up, I think I could live with it. Either 
adopting this change or dropping the 

I've talked to Gary as well.  I agree that this would be much better than
the current proposed implementation.  

Does it warrant another month of reviews?  I'll leave that one up to you
guys...

Thanks,
Lee

Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the
public and have no self.  - Cyril Connolly




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:17 AM
To: Gary Ham
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; ARTHUR C III CTR DISA JITC BOTTERELL;
Neil C Bourgeois
Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP v1.2 implementation Difficulties

Thanks for the prompt reply, Gary H,

I read through the recommended change, and although I would like to hear 
what Art, Jacob, Don M, Jeff W, Dave E and Lee T think, along with any 
others who wish to pipe up, I think I could live with it. Either 
adopting this change or dropping the 

I was hoping it would qualify for 15 day. not 60

On Feb 15, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:

> Thanks for the prompt reply, Gary H,
> 
> I read through the recommended change, and although I would like to hear what Art, Jacob, Don M, Jeff W, Dave E and Lee T think, along with any others who wish to pipe up, I think I could live with it. Either adopting this change or dropping the 

We should definitely check with Mary to be sure, but only if we decide 
to make this suggested change. I think we should see what the final 
tally of the Committee Specification Vote and the Vote for advancing the 
CS for OASIS Standard Approval.

The url and passage below is the one I was interpreting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/OASISTCHandbook.htm

15-day Public Review

A 15-day Public Review is similar to a 60-day Public Review and can only 
be conducted after at least one 60-day Public Review cycle has 
completed. During a 15-day review only those changes made to the work 
product after the 60-day review cycle was initiated are subject to 
comment and must be clearly identified as such.

The process is otherwise exactly the same as the 60-day Public Review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the following url also applies:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#publicReview

It's too long to quote, but it is open to interpretation, in my opinion.

Cheers,
Rex


Gary Ham wrote:
> I was hoping it would qualify for 15 day. not 60
>
> On Feb 15, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>   
>> Thanks for the prompt reply, Gary H,
>>
>> I read through the recommended change, and although I would like to hear what Art, Jacob, Don M, Jeff W, Dave E and Lee T think, along with any others who wish to pipe up, I think I could live with it. Either adopting this change or dropping the 

> in fact look at a solution that does work as a 1.2 change.  We have tested this with out a problem and know that it
> works.   The basic concept is to encapsulate the