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.