OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Questions about the ebXML SOAP Extension Element Schema

    Posted 05-22-2007 21:00
    Hello,
    
    I have a few questions about the current version of the ebXML SOAP Extension
    Element Schema. This email refers to -
    http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/core/ebms-header-3_0-200704.x
    sd  .
    
    Earlier today I mentioned that the schema does not match ebMS Public Review
    Draft 02 in regards to the "Timestamp" element. I also have found that the
    schema does not match the PR Draft in regards to the ConversationId element.
    The spec uses "ConversationId" the schema uses "ConversationID". In my
    opinion the schema should be fixed.
    
    I have noticed that the schema uses xsd:sequence in many places where I
    would have expected xsd:all to be used. xsd:seqence forces an ordering of
    elements that I do not think should be required. For example PartyInfo
    requires that the From element precedes the To element.
    
        
    
    Within UserMessage there is a specific ordering of MessageInfo, PartyInfo,
    CollaborationInfo, etc.
    
        
    
    
    
    Is there a reason that we have made the schema strict in terms of element
    ordering? While typing this email I went back and looked at the ebMS 2.0
    schema, I notice that schema also enforces specific element ordering. So, I
    suppose it is not a big deal. It just strikes me as unnecessary. Though some
    of the examples in the PR02 draft do not validate because they do not match
    the schema element ordering.
    
    -ric
    
    


  • 2.  Re: [ebxml-msg] Questions about the ebXML SOAP Extension Element Schema

    Posted 05-23-2007 00:41
    I know in ebMS 1.0-2.0 days, it was helpful to have things appear in
    a predictable order, making it easier to eyeball problems.  Not sure
    that's still a valid concern, given the much better forensic tools
    available today.  I agree the restrictions are unnecessary, but I also
    don't think it hurts to leave them as-is.  I'd welcome a compelling
    argument either way.
    
    The mis-ordered examples were simply a result of hand-coding them,
    during the period that schema development was lagging spec changes.
    
    --Pete
    
    Thus spoke Ric Emery (remery@us.axway.com) on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:58:46PM -0700:
    > ...
    > I have noticed that the schema uses xsd:sequence in many places where I
    > would have expected xsd:all to be used. xsd:seqence forces an ordering of
    > elements that I do not think should be required. For example PartyInfo
    > requires that the From element precedes the To element.
    > ...
    > Is there a reason that we have made the schema strict in terms of element
    > ordering? While typing this email I went back and looked at the ebMS 2.0
    > schema, I notice that schema also enforces specific element ordering. So, I
    > suppose it is not a big deal. It just strikes me as unnecessary. Though some
    > of the examples in the PR02 draft do not validate because they do not match
    > the schema element ordering.
    
    -- 
    Pete Wenzel