RE: [ebxml-bp] WI ??: BP and CPPA's use of name attribute

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Dale> Can you explain what you would want CPPA to change and why?

Other comments and reactions below.


> * /CPP/CollaborationRole/ProcessSpecification/@name
> /ProcessSpecification/@name

I believe this name attribute is of different nature than other 
name/nameID attributes. ProcessSpecification is the root element of BPSS
and it doesn't have 
nameID attribute. This name attribute is not used for reference
purposes. We won't make it optional. It would be safe to drop this from
the list.

Dale> This name attribute is not used for reference purposes either
within BPSS or within CPPA. But for some reason, it is "imported" by
CPPA when BPSS is used. We can ask on the CPPA list why this value is
there. I am not certain I recall why it imported. I think that it might
be a better value for "Service" than the "uuid" value, however. It might
be
worth raising as an alignment issues between BPSS 2.0 and CPA 2.1. How
should BPSS stipulate a value for the value of Service within ebMS? CPPA
only tries to pass a desired value along, or fill one in when it is
missing. I think @name was optional, so @uuid was used. But a @uuid
value is typically less than ideal from a human readability standpoint.


> * /CPP/CollaborationRole/Role/@name
> Selected from //Role/@name
> 
> [The specific xpath to the Role in the BPSS is indicated by a href,
which uses a fragment identifier to reference the Role element by its 
> id.]j
> 
> 1/2 * /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
> /ThisPartyActionBinding/@action Can take value from BPSS (see note) or
can use an agreed upon value.
> 
> [CPPA spec notes: When business transactions are not reused in
different contexts, it is recommended that the names of the requesting
business activity and responding business activity be used as action>
names.]

I didn't put this on my list since @action is not matched against the 
value in BPSS -- CPPA may specify arbitrary value which MAY be taken 
from BPSS. It no more references BPSS.
If we make @name optional, this (taking action name from BPSS) may not
work. Does this cause any problem? I believe not.

Dale> True, a match of values is not Necessary, but it is Recommended.
Again, how should BPSS indicate, if it wants, what the Action value
should be in CPPA and on down to ebMS?


ThisPartyActionBinding/@xlink:href references the @name value in BPSS as

URI fragment.

> /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
> /ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext
> No specific reference to an information item (container element).
> 
> *  /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]/
> ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/@binaryCollaboration
> Corresponds with value of BinaryCollaboration@name
> 
> 
> [In 2.0, this will need to be generalized to reference 
> BinaryCollaboartion, MultipartyCollaboration or 
> BusinessCollaboration.]
> 
> * /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]/
> ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/
> CollaborationActivity/[CollaborationActivity...]/@name
> Matches the value of BPSS //CollaborationActivity@name.
> 
> [These Collaboration activity children are used to select nested BCs.]
> 
> 
> * /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
> /ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/@businessTransactionActivity
> Matches the value of BPSS //BusinessTransactionActivity/@name
> 
> 
> /CPP/CollaborationRole/ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]
> /ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext/@requestOrResponseAction
> Fixed enumeration.
> 
> [Aligned with whether the action is a requesting or responding 
> activity, but nothing is referenced in the BPSS instance directly.]

CPPA 2.0c specification says "the value of the requestOrResponsAction 
attribute MUST match the value of the name attribute of the 
RequestingBusinessActivity element corresponding to the Business 
Transaction specified in the businessTransactionActivity attribute" Any
change in later version?

Dale> Right, Kenji. My mistake.

I relied on my faulty memory for this item rather than rereading the
text (I think because I usually just use values for these name
attributes such as "request" or "response" and they don't percolate down
to messaging. )