W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Question regarding cardinality of [destination]

From: Rimas Rekasius <rimas@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:57:58 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD3610C40.93876535-ON86257004.006D19D5-86257004.006DB019@us.ibm.com>
Thank you very much for considering this LC comment.  The proposed 
resolution more than adequately addresses the concern that was raised. The 
suggested text is clear, precise and unambiguous.

Regards,

Rimas V. Rekasius
e-business Industry Standards Architect
1-312-245-6775 (voice/FAX)
1-773-934-2705 (cell phone)




"Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)" <nilo.mitra@ericsson.com> 
05/17/2005 11:55 AM

To
public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org, Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM@IBMUS
cc

Subject
Re: Question regarding cardinality of [destination]






Hi Rimas:
The WG considered your LC comment and has chosen to clarify that the 
message property
"[destination]: IRI (mandatory)" will be replaced by 
"[destination]: IRI (1..1)" where (x..y) is short for minOccur=x and 
minOccur=y.

In other words, there is only one [destination] property associated with a 
message.

At the same time, the WG has also decided to make the same change to
"[action]: IRI (mandatory)" replacing it with
"[action]: IRI (1..1)".

Please let the WG know if this does not address your concern - within two 
weeks, please,
Thanks,
Nilo
(on behalf of the WS-A WG)

Nilo Mitra
Ericsson, Inc.
desk: +1 212-843-8451
mobile: +1 516-476-7427 


> When I read the Last Call Working Draft [1] of the Web Services 
Addressing 
> 1.0 - Core specification, I see that the cardinality indicator 
associated 
> with the "[destination]" property in section 3. Message Addressing 
> Properties [2] is "(mandatory)".  Unfortunately, I do not see a 
definition 
> of "(mandatory)" anywhere in the same document (I even checked RFC 2119 
> [3]).  So, while I would doubt that anyone would argue about associating 

> minOccurs=1 to the term, it is less clear what value of maxOccurs to 
> associate.  I can see arguments for both one and unbounded.  So...
>
> (1) What did the authors intend for the meaning of "(mandatory)"?
>
> (2) If the intent was in fact maxOccurs=unbounded, could you help me to 
> understand the use cases behind the intent?  I have some ideas, but I am 

> sure that the authors must have more.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rimas V. Rekasius
> e-business Industry Standards Architect
> 1-312-245-6775 (voice/FAX)
> 1-773-934-2705 (cell phone)
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/ <
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/#msgaddrprops <
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/#msgaddrprops> 
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt <
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 20:31:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:38 GMT