David,
No one is arguing about whether the cardinality of the Role element in the
MSG spec should include minOccurs=0. It has been previously agreed that the
cardinality may include zero and no one is asking to change it. This
argument is entirely around whether it is permitted that the word
"optional" be used when minOccurs=0. It is NOT permitted as long as the
MSG spec states conformance to RFC2119. The effort that has thus far been
expended on this repeating discussion could have been better expended in
rewording those places where the word "optional" SHALL not be used.
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 02/14/2002 12:55:46 PM
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Yes, I am very aware of this. Once again, CPA is driving Messaging.
As long as there is only one CollaborationRole per CPA/PartyInfo, this is
not a
problem. But, if CollaborationRole is REQUIRED then if Messaging is to
align
with CPA, we will have to REQUIRE the Role element (it can no longer occur
zero
times). This is what this discussion is really about. CPA needs this
element
so we want Messaging to change.
OTOH, we have implementers with market-ready code, who will now have to
change.
This is why W3C gets much of its bad press -- it takes too long to get a
standard out and implementors end up suffering.
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:25 AM
To: David Fischer; ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David:
Information in a CPA is organized around CollaborationRole. A CPA has two
PartyInfo elements. Each PartyInfo element has one or more
CollaborationRole
elements. Each CollaborationRole has one or more ServiceBinding elements.
Each ServiceBinding is associated with a business process and contains
bindings from action to delivery channels, transport, doc exchange, etc.
Each CollaborationRole element has a REQUIRED Role element that is
equivalent to the Role element in ebMS.
In other words, all CPP/A implementations will have to support the notion
of
Role.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:06 AM
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
What is it going to mean to us if the CPA group gets Messaging to require
Role?
How hard will it be to implement the Role element in your implementations.
I
think Sybase already has this, what about everyone else?
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:47 AM
To: David Fischer; Martin W Sachs
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David,
I believe that the group decision was
obviously ambiguous. In discussing elements,
optional would, to me, be understood to mean
something about possible zero cardinality.
Your interpretation is apparently not
universally accepted. So what you think
people agreed to is not what they thought
they agreed to.
Sounds like this is something needing
a fix, one way or the other. To say
that it is a functionality change implies that it
had been unambigous what was agreed to.
But it was not unambiguous. Therefore,
it is not a change in functionality.
Dale Moberg
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:42 AM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Yes Marty, this is what I am saying.
We, as a group, agreed to add Role as long as it was OPTIONAL. As to
why Chris
added this element, he didn't tell us -- I'm sure he had his reasons (we
didn't
ask since, after all, this element is OPTIONAL). Support for this
element has
always been OPTIONAL. It is too late to change that now. If I were an
implementer, I would never send a value in Role unless the receiving
end, at CPA
configure time, asked for this. As an implementer, I would never fault
when
receiving this element since it will not cause a parser error -- I would
ignore
it, unless I were someone like RosettaNet who needed this element.
However, if
an implementation chooses to return a NotSupported when it receives a
Role, they
are allowed to do so. This is what OPTIONAL means.
We voted NOT to change functionality. If we are going to ignore group
decisions, then why do we bother to vote?
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:50 AM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
So you are saying that it is OK for a software vendor to decide not to
implement the ROLE element. Then each vendor has to supply a catalog
stating which OPTIONAL elements he/she does not provide. A customer has
to
check every vendor's catalog to make sure that the OPTIONAL elements
that
the customer requires are supported. What if next month, the same
customer
discovers that he/she needs one more element that the newly purchased
software doesn't support?
Of course I can't believe that that is what you really mean. However a
vendor that understands RFC2119 will interpret the MSG spec in exactly
that
way, Use of OPTIONAL for a purpose other than to indicate that a vendor
doesn't have to support this particular major feature can lead to an
interoperability disaster. One can eliminate the words OPTIONAL and MAY
without changing any syntax or semantics.
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 02/14/2002 12:08:25 AM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, ebXML
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Marty, I don't disagree with your premise. We do need to avoid the
word
OPTIONAL unless that is really what we mean.
Doug/Chris' Issue 15 concerns OPTIONAL in relation to the Role element.
At
the
bottom of the issue, it also says there are other instances...
I just went through the document again and I don't disagree with any of
the
instances where we use OPTIONAL. Ping/Pong (w/ or w/o signature),
Message
Status, MessageOrder are all truly OPTIONAL items for implementers. The
only
one I'm not sure about concerns Transfer Encoding on HTTP (I'm too lazy
to
research this at this time of night).
Outside of the definitions, we use the word *OPTIONAL* 13 times and
*optional* 3
times (twice concerning the id element -- which maybe is not truly
optional).
Perhaps the problem is in section 1.1.1 and our definition of OPTIONAL?
It
says:
... An implementation which does not include a
particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate
with another implementation which does include the
option, though perhaps with reduced functionality ...
which we do by supplying the NotSupported Error.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:18 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David,
I gave in too easily. The subject line says " Issue 15: Use of the word
OPTIONAL". The text of issue 15 is shown below. So either the subject
line is referencing the wrong issue or the discussion is about the word
"OPTIONAL" and not about the cardinality of the Role element.
Regards,
Marty
<issue>
<issue-num>15</issue-num>
<title>RFC2119 usage</title>
<locus>line 784</locus>
<section>3.1.1.2 PartyId element</section>
<priority>editorial</priority>
<topic>spec</topic>
<status>Active</status>
<originator><a href='mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com'>Chris
Ferris</a></originator>
<responsible></responsible>
<description><a href
='http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200201/msg00130.html'>[
see
email]</a> use of the term OPTIONAL here may be confusing given the
conformance statement. Suggest that this be rephrased as follows: The
Role
element, if present, ... (technical/editorial) Other instances of
OPTIONAL
where ordinality is meant:<p/>
* 500 (MIME start parameter) * 1801, 1814 (Signature element in
Message
Status Request & Response) * 1822, 1842 (StatusRequest and
StatusResponse elements; really, the service is OPTIONAL) * 1905, 1955
(Signature element in Ping & Pong)</description>
<proposal>make suggested change</proposal>
<resolution>Disagree.</resolution>
</issue>
************************************************************************
********
*****
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 06:29:54 PM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, ebXML
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Yes Marty, I understand. This issue is trying to change the Messaging
Specification functionality to REQUIRE that everyone implement Role and
allow it
to be in the message From/To zero or one time. This is NOT what we
agreed
to.
I also understand this has implications for CPA, which I have already
discussed
with you on a CPA conference call.
I suppose we could ask the implementers we know of if this will mean a
change
for their code? What about implementors we don't know about? We have
already
voted not to change functionality. The point is that we added Role as
OPTIONAL
and now, after the last bell, we are trying to change.
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:07 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
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>
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>