Doug, Sorry for this late response. I was not following the discussion after I posted the issues. Here is my comments: > > 1. xlink:type should be REQUIRED. > > In detail, XLINK specification defines that xlink:type > > to be REQUIRED, but ebXML MS spec defines that > > SOAPBody-Manifest-Reference-xlink:type > > is OPTIONAL. So ebXML MS spec should > > make it mandatory to conform to XLINK. > > The xlink:type value MUST be provided in the infoset resulting from parsing an > XML instance using the provided schema. In our schema, the > Reference@xlink:type attribute is fixed, meaning it is optional in the XML > instance but required in the infoset (and will always have the value > simple ). Section 5.3 of the XLink Recommendation uses exactly the same > schema mechanism. I don't believe a change is required here. We felt it was a little bit tricky, but it would be OK with us to keep the current spec as is for that reason. > > 2. The format of start parameter in the sample of > > section 2.1.2 Message Packaging is wrong. > > Currently the spec has: > > start=
messagepackage-123@example.com > > But it should be : > > start= <
messagepackage-123@example.com> > > The sample of B.2.2 Sending ebXML Service > > messages over HTTP is correct. > > Agreed. Isn't it fun tracing everything back to RFC 2822? > > > 3. It is ambiguous which value you should use > > for Role element under From and To element > > in the MessageHeader. > > CollaborationProtocolAgreement/PartyInfo/CollaborationRole/Role@name > > or > > CollaborationProtocolAgreement/PartyInfo/CollaborationRole/Role@xlink:href > > There is description that URI is recommended for the value > > but sample of the CPPA specification is using the other one: > > @name : Buyer > > @xlink:href :
http://www.rosettanet.org/processes/3A4.xml#Buyer > > I'm not entirely certain what the issue is here. Are you commenting on > another ambiguous interaction between the CPP/A or BPSS documents and an ebXML > Message conforming to those requirements, something similar to our earlier > discussions around the Service and Action values? If I remember correctly, > those earlier discussions were resolved (after discussion between the TC's and > with UN/CEFACT) in the CPP/A or BPSS specifications. Our current > specification certainly does not describe the specific source in a BPSS or > CPP/A instance for the Service or Action values. Are you suggesting a > different approach for the Role element value or am I missing the real issue? As Cliff helped me to explain the issue, it seems to be clarified now. There were some interoperability problem when one company is using a name and the other is using xlink:href. But spec doesn't describe which value we have to use. So we just need a clarification. Thanks, Iwasa > > ... > > > Thanks, > > > > Iwasa > > Fujitsu Limited > > and, thanks to you, > doug > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: <
http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl > >