I agree with Arvola. Once the schema is normative, and not just an example,
we have to assume that there will be people who implement the schema and
give only cursory attention to the text.
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 11/05/2001 09:58:35 PM
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
Arvola,
I guess you refer to:
I suggest that this sentence be struck out. The schema must be in sync
with
the specification because implementers will directly use the schema in
their
implementations.
in reference to the sentence:
Note: if inconsistencies exist between the specification and this schema,
the specification supersedes this example schema.
I disagree. The spec must take precedence over the schema in the appendix.
If
there is a discrepancy, we must change the schema. After we publish v1.1
with
the schema in the appendix, we can no longer make changes to the v1.1 spec
but
we can still make changes to the schema.
I will make this change if the group decides you are right and I am wrong.
Anyone?
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:22 AM
To: David Fischer; Martin W Sachs
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
David:
Please see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200110/msg00183.html
for my comments on the introductory material in Appendix A.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
To: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>; Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
Cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sunday, November 04, 2001 6:46 PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
This is really quite annoying! Oh well. I checked the entire document for
references of 0 before I sent it out yet there they are? Thanks for
catching
them. I will make the rest of Arvola's corrections tomorrow.
Arvola, please send me your Appendix A comments again.
On the TraceHeader comments, weren't we going to vote on removing
TraceHeaderList on Monday?
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:47 AM
To: Arvola Chan
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
A few comments on Arvola's comments on 1.0.7 and a few other comments.
Line 313, Reference to ebMSREQ: I agree with Arvola. You cannot reference
a document which isn't published and available to anyone reading the
specification. You also can't simply ask OASIS to publish this one because
it is undoubtedly far out of date. I suggest capturing any needed points
in ebMSREQ and putting them into the spec.
Line 328: I agree with Arvola. A specification can't reference itself.
Square brackets are reserved for pointing to the reference list. Usually
one says "this specification" rather than using a pseudo-reference acronym.
Line 1355: we have often used something like [ebCPPA] as an object when
the object of the sentence is a specification. I this case, the object is
an XPointer, not the XPointer specification.
Line 1447: This section title is "Optional Features". In RFC2119 terms
(which this specification says it conforms to), OPTIONAL means that vendors
do not have to implement the feature in question. Does the MSG team intend
that vendors be free to implement or not implement the functions in this
section? If not, find a word that is not on the RFC2119 list. Please
treat this is an issue, not as a comment to the technical editor.
Line 1636: Please check all mentions of the version attribute for
references to section 0. I found at least one that Arvola didn't call out.
Reference list: All references to ebXML specifications should include the
current URLs. If the reference is post-v 1.0, it may have an OASIS URL
instead of the original ebXML URL.
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
****************************************************************************
****
*****
Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 11/01/2001 09:34:04 PM
To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
David:
Please see my embedded editorial comments.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
v1.07. This has the ...-02.xsd schema included.
I corrected a wording problem with syncReply. The spec said if syncReply
was
true that the application had to wait for a business reply. What if there
is no
business reply! ;-)
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>