David,
We are trying to say that "OPTIONAL" or "optional" tells a vendor that the
vendor need not implement the feature (per RFC2119). That's not what is
wanted for Role. You have to mean "optional" without saying "optional".
There aren't any really good synonyms of "optional" ("discretionary" has
been suggested). You also have to mean "optional" without saying "may"
either, for the same reason. For elements, the CPPA spec avoids "optional"
and "may" by mentioning the cardinality instead. Example: "The Role element
can be included zero or one time."
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/13/2002 04:24:26 PM
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Chris,
When you proposed the Role element you said it was OPTIONAL and the team
agreed
to add it as OPTIONAL. When you proposed this element (see original issue
128 -- attached) you said:
Issue Add Role as an optional element within both From and To
elements. Role should be indpendently wihtin the messaging
spec with a non-normative note that describes how it
relates to the BPSS spec.
The minutes from 11-05-01 again say Role is OPTIONAL.
Why are we changing now? Role has always been OPTIONAL, let's leave it
alone.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:18 PM
Cc: ebXML
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
+1
I think it critical that we leave no room for doubt
as to our intent. The Role element is not optional,
it has a cardinality of zero or one.
Cheers,
Chris
Arvola Chan wrote:
> +1.
>
> -Arvola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>
> To: ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:10 PM
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
>
> David has disagreed with Chris' statement that OPTIONAL is misused
> (according
> to 2119) in a number of contexts. The basic issue here is a conflict
> between
> something that may or may not appear in an instance of an ebXML message
and
> something that must or may be implemented by a compliant ebMS system. In
> the
> specified uses of the word OPTIONAL, the first is meant but our document
> conventions (section 1.1.1) restricts us to using OPTIONAL only when the
> second is intended. I would strongly recommend making the change Chris
> suggested.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>