W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

Cardinality / Optionality issues

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:40:23 -0500
Message-Id: <83DF1806-2EB2-11D9-95F2-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

There's been a lot of discussion regarding the optionality/cardinality 
of particular information in EPRs and Message Information Headers when 
Addressing is in use.

As a reminder, the following open issues touch on this already:

* i009 Cardinality of properties and their values (Should more than one 
value (e.g., EPR) be allowed in those properties that constrain it to 
one? Should multiple instances of properties be allowed (e.g., multiple 
ReplyTo headers)?)

* i017 Purpose of the Action property (Should Action be optional?)

* i023 Required properties in EPRs (should address, selected port type 
and service-port be required in EPRs?)

* i025 When Actions Collide (Should more than one Action MIH be 
allowed?)

It seems like the recent thread started by "WS-Addr issues" is largely 
captured by i017 (I'll be adding the original issues raised by Doug and 
Rich to the issues list shortly). If you believe that there's another 
issue in this area that isn't yet captured, please raise it.

The Member submission specifies the following cardinalities for the 
abstract ("core") properties:

EPRs:
   [address]: mandatory (exactly one?)
   [selected port type]: 0..1
   [service-port] 0..1

MIHs:
   [destination]: mandatory (exactly one?)
   [source endpoint]: 0..1
   [reply endpoint]: 0..1
   [fault endpoint]: 0..1
   [action]: mandatory (exactly one?)
   [message id]: 0..1
   [relationship]: 0..


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:40:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT