Re: v98b PartyId needs min length of 1

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Doug,
Fine with me on the packaging using another type [but I do think its less
than 8 lines per].[And I have
evolved to the point where XML is essentially *not* readable -so I don't
care on this one-, especially
throwing in canonical form for signing, etc],
-anyway,
yes you are correct on 'what did we really mean?' -we sure just didn't mean
some empty content....

The formal specification (the Schema, not the prose) will need detailed
scrutiny for these issues.........

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com> on 03/29/2001 01:59:51 PM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: v98b PartyId needs min length of 1



Scott,

I was recommending a new type simply to avoid gross expansion of the
schema.  Even if we just add the restriction to a few elements and
attributes (and I think that should be unlikely), we'd have the 8 or so
lines you showed below repeated for each of them.  I'd prefer to keep
the schema at least somewhat readable.

I'd recommend using this new type for every optional element or
attribute currently of type "string".  This would ensure there's some
meaning to including that value in an instance.  Whether or not every
required string element and attribute should also have this type
essentially says, "what did we really mean to require for all trading
parties?"  If we messed that up (as may have occurred with EDI in some
cases), why did we bother?

thanx,
   doug

--- Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> I know the required/optional issue quite well from my work with
> vertical
> XML groups. In fact, in context of traditional EDI, this is nothing
> new.
> Some EDI transactions between partners include garbage in required
> fields
> in order to satisfy the spec.A pattern we now see is the tendancy to
> call
> everything optional in XML vertical groups, which has its own impact
> on
> interoperability. ...My areas of thinking beyond ebXML exit around
> this
> include formally specializing mechanisms for fully optional standards
> into
> concrete standard instances that include required fields for specific
> business partners, and consistent collaborations for exchange of
> those
> instances for ariving at it......
>
> Why a new type? Why not impose the constraints as needed using what
> is
> there?
>
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
>
>
> Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com> on 03/29/2001 12:11:59 PM
>
> To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
> ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: v98b PartyId needs min length of 1
>
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I agree and would like to see us go further.  One of the common
> problems with XML syntax is the meaning of required and optional with
> respect to empty elements and attributes.  The problem is the #PCDATA
> (for elements in a DTD), CDATA (for attributes in a DTD) and string
> (for elements and attributes in an XML Schema) datatypes do not
> require
> any content.  So, an empty element satisfies a schema that requires
> that element.
>
> This is a major security and interoperability issue that schemas and
> DTD's alone do not address.  For example, applications are often
> written without a full understanding of this problem.  They are
> liable
> to fail in weird and mysterious ways when attempting to access and
> use
> empty strings from an XML document.
>
> I would recommend defining a subtype of string in our schema with the
> restriction you've outlined below.  We should use that new datatype
> rather than "string" throughout our schema.  (Note: We're lucky here
> because the problem doesn't have as elegant a solution when using a
> DTD
> for validation.)
>
> To my knowledge, we have defined no meaning for an empty string
> anywhere in the ebXML TR&P headers.  As such, this restriction should
> not effect the text of our document.
>
> thanx,
>    doug
>
> --- Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Looks like we need to change the schema for PartyId and add
> > constraint for
> > min length of 1, as in:
> >
> >      <xsd:element name = "PartyId">
> >           <xsd:complexType>
> >                <xsd:simpleContent>
> >                     <xsd:restriction base = "xsd:string">
> >                          <xsd:minLength value = "1"/>
> >                          <xsd:attribute name = "type" type =
> > "xsd:string"/>
> >                     </xsd:restriction>
> >                </xsd:simpleContent>
> >           </xsd:complexType>
> >      </xsd:element>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> > XML Industry Enablement
> > IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> > 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> > srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to:
> ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text