Re: [ebxml-dev] Discrepancy between ebRIM v.2.1 schema and specs

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Hi Wes,

This is a known discrepancy between RIM and the XML schema in V2.1.

In this case the intent was that cardinality of SpecificationLink instances
within a Specification is zero or more (0..*)

Thanks for your feedback.

Wes Kubo wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> I was looking through version 2.1 of the ebRIM, both the rim.xsd schema
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.1/schema/rim.xsd)
> and the specs
> (https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.1/specs/ebrim_v2.1
> .pdf). On the UML diagram on page 11 of the spec, it would seem that a
> ServiceBinding is required to have at least ONE SpecificationLink
> (multiplicity 1..*). However, according to the schema,
>
> <schemaSnippet>
>
>     <complexType name="ServiceBindingType">
>         <complexContent>
>             <extension base="tns:RegistryObjectType">
>                 <sequence>
>                     <element ref="tns:SpecificationLink" minOccurs="0"
> maxOccurs="unbounded" />
>                 </sequence>
>             <attribute name="service" use="optional" type="IDREF" />
>             <attribute name="accessURI" use="optional" type="anyURI" />
>             <attribute name="targetBinding" use="optional" type="IDREF" />
>             </extension>
>         </complexContent>
>       </complexType>
>
> </schemaSnippet>
>
> the SpecificationLink is not required. Am I reading something wrong, or is
> there an error in either the spec or schema?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Wes
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>

--
Regards,
Farrukh