Re: Comments about cpp/cpa examples

[Yukinori Saito <y-saito@ecom.or.jp>]

Chris,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Concerning with '3.Question and comments(4)', I have an additional question.
I understood that there is no necessity to have same qualifiers of same
namespace grammatically both in cpp/cpa document and XML schema document.
But I think we had better to use same qualifiers to get better understanding
for examples.
Is there any misunderstanding or insufficient consideration about this?

Best Regards,
Yukinori Saito

----- Original Message -----
From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
To: Yukinori Saito <y-saito@ecom.or.jp>
Cc: TP-Team <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>; EDIgr)K.Wakaizumi <waka@ecom.or.jp>;
EDIgr)K.Mizoguchi <mizoguchi@ecom.or.jp>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Comments about cpp/cpa examples


> Yukinori,
>
> Thanks for the review. Some comments follow.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Yukinori Saito wrote:
> >
> > Dear Chris Ferris,
> >
> > I think examples of cpp/cpa are very useful to understand the structure
of
> > cpp/cpa and functions of tags of cpp/cpa.
> > So, I studied both examples of cpp and cpa, and I noticed some (maybe)
> > mistaken parts and some questions.
> > Please check these comments.
> >
> > 1. Maybe mistaken parts of cpp-example.xml
> > (1) The value of xlink:type attribute under ProcessSpecification element
is
> > described as 'locator' in cpp-example. But the cpp/cps specification
says
> > that xlink:type attribute has a FIXED value of 'simple'. (Line 673 of
> > cpp/cpa Specification Version 0.95). Maybe you forgot to change the
value of
> > xlink:type attribute to 'simple' in cpp-example.
>
> We've recently changed the specification so that all of the xlink:type
> attributes are 'simple' for consistency. The examples should be
> consistent
> with the version of the specification that Marty sent out last night.
>
> > (2) The value of channelId attribute of Override element is described
> >  'N08' in cpp-example. This value should be 'N07'. Because value of
> > channelId attribute of DeliveryChannel is 'N07'.
>
> Good catch, I'll fix this.
>
> > (3) The value of transportId attribute under Transport element is
described
> > 'N18'. This value should be 'N08'. Because the value of transportId
> > attribute of DeliveryChannel element is 'N08'.
>
> Yes, it should, thank you.
>
> >
> > 2. Maybe mistaken parts of cpa-example.xml
> > (1) Transport element of seller (DUNS:987654321) has 2 SendingProtocol
> > elements (HTTP, SMTP). But the cpp/cpa specification says 'In a CPA the
> > SendingProtocol element shall appear once.' (Line 1070 of version 0.95).
> > Either is mistaken.
>
> Another good observation. The specification is incorrect in this regard
>
> > (2) The value of docExchangeId attribute of DeliveryChannel is described
> > 'N06'. This value should be 'N36'. Because the value of docExchangeId
> > attribute of DocExchange element is 'N36'.
>
> Correct.
>
> > (3) The value of id attribute of Composite element is described 'N033'
in
> > cpa-example.xml. On the other hand, the value of id attribute of
Composite
> > element is 'N42' in cpp-example.xml. Is there any necessity to change
the
> > content from 'N42' to 'N033'?
>
> No reason that their different other than that I composed them
> separately.
>
> >
> > 3. Questions and comments
> > (1) There is no content in ds:KeyInfo element under Certificate element,
> > such as '<ds:KeyInfo/>'. Is this appropriate? Is there necessity to
> > describe such as '<ds:KeyInfo>XMLDSIG</ds:KeyInfo>'?
>
> I could embed a complete X509 cert, not sure what value that would add.
>
> > (2) What is the meaning of 'P1D' as a content of PersistDuration element
> > under ReliableMessaging element? Is this some kind of unit?
>
> It is a period that conforms to the XMLSchema timePeriod (now, duration)
> data type. P1D means "one day". See http://www.w3.org/tr/xmlschema-2
> for details.
>
> > (3) I thought an example of ds:Signature element had better described in
the
> > example of cpp and cpa.
> > (4) There is a following description about namespace in cpp-example.xml.
> > xmlns:tp=http://www.ebxml.org/namespaces/tradePartner
> > But there is a following description about namespace in cpp-cpa-095.xsd.
> > xmlns:tns=http://www.ebxml.org/namespaces/tradePartner
> > Different name of namespace is used.
>
> Different qualifier, same namespace. 'tns' is typically understood
> as "this namespace". The value of the qualifier is meaningful only
> within the context of an instance document. There is no reason or
> need to standardize on a single value.
>
> > Usually, cpp/cpa document is generated by using XML schema document,
> > therefore I think the name of namespace should be same.
>
> See above, this isn't necessary. An XML namespace-aware parser
> actually performs a mapping of the value of the namespace
> (e.g. http://www.ebxml.org/namespaces/tradePartner) onto the
> namespace qualifier value (e.g. tp) so that what the parser
> really sees is:
>
> <http://www.ebxml.org/namespaces/tradePartner:PartyId/>
> not
> <tp:PartyId/>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Yukinori Saito
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Yukinori Saito
> > Electronic Commerce Promotion Council of Japan(ECOM)
> > E-mail:y-saito@ecom.or.jp
> > TEL:+81-3-5500-3642   FAX:+81-3-5500-3660
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-tp-request@lists.ebxml.org