My recollection was that Role was introduced so as to
a) support RosettaNet better and b) to make it easier to
map the incoming message to a process state in the
choreography (BPSS) referenced by the CPA.
I believe that "optional" in the case of Role was
referenced to its cardinality (e.g. a message need
not contain a Role element under To and From).
However, a receiving MSH would have to be able to
receive a message that contained this information.
It doesn't have to use it, but it cannot fault if
it gets one.
IMO, it is only optional w/r/t whether the application
choses to supply this information (and/or consume it)
it is NOT OPTIONAL to support from an implementation's
perspective. However, the *nature* of that support
is certainly up to the implementation/vendor beyond
the ability to receive a message containing said element.
That said, I don't believe that this is an OPTIONAL
issue but one of cardinality.
Cheers,
Chris
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> 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>
>
>
>
>