Re: Version 0.99 of ebXML Message Service (dated 4/20/2001)

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Arvola,,

Your observation is correct. The schema is correct in this
case. I've forwarded your issue to the ebxml-transport list
so that it can be considered in our final round of edits
during the face2face meeting in Vienna next month.

Cheers,

Chris

> Arvola Chan wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris:
> 
> I am working with Pete Wenzel on the possible convergence of the
> RosettaNet Implementation Framework with ebXML TRP.
> 
> I notice the following issue in the 0.99 version of the TRP spec.
> The definitions for delivery receipt and for acknowledgement
> (extracted from the XSD and from the word document's Appendix A
> and show below) is not consistent with the sections on Acknowledgement
> (8.6)  and DeliveryReceipt (8.14):
> 
> <!-- DELIVERY RECEIPT -->
> <element name="DeliveryReceipt">
>   <complexType>
>    <sequence>
>     <element ref="tns:Timestamp"/>
>     <element ref="ds:Reference" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>    </sequence>
>    <attribute ref="tns:id"/>
>    <attribute ref="tns:version"/>
>    <anyAttribute namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-instance"
> processContents="lax"/>
>    <!-- <attribute name="signed" type="boolean"/> -->
>   </complexType>
> </element>
> <!-- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT -->
> <element name="Acknowledgment">
>   <complexType>
>    <sequence>
>     <element ref="tns:Timestamp"/>
>     <element ref="tns:From" minOccurs="0"/>
>     <element ref="ds:Reference" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>    </sequence>
>    <attribute ref="tns:id"/>
>    <attribute ref="tns:version"/>
>    <attribute ref="soap:mustUnderstand" use="required"/>
>    <attribute ref="soap:actor" use="required"/>
>    <anyAttribute namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-instance"
> processContents="lax"/>
>   </complexType>
> </element>
> 
> Whereas Section 8.6 makes use of 0 or more ds:Reference
> elements to carry NRR information, Section 8.14 makes use of
> a single ds:DigestValue element (a sub-element of ds:Reference)
> to carry the digest of the original message.
> 
> In spite of the note in Appendix A: "If inconsistencies exist between
> the specification and this schema, the specification supercedes this
> example schema", I tend to believe that the schema is correct is
> this case, and that the spec is in error.
> 
> -Arvola Chan
> TIBCO Software