Re: Additional Proposals for Resolving Issue 50

I would like to make a clarification to the proposal:

This proposal is relying on the constratints that already state 
wsa:messageID must be present if wsa:replyTo or wsa:faultTo is present. 
That statement is assumed to continue to be present in this additional 
proposal.

Tom Rutt wrote:

> This email has additional proposals to finish the edting of the spec 
> for optional replyTo.
>
> The MessageID is only required when replyTo or faultTo are present. 
> Thus the Relationship element should only
> be required if the MessageID is presnent on the request.
>
>
> These have proposal numbers starting from 4.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Additional Proposals for Resolution of Issue 50
>
> Since the text on property [message id] was tied to the mandatory 
> nature of replyTo. Thus, we also need to reflect the use of default 
> (e.g.., “back channel” mapping) case in the abstract definitions of 
> messageID and Relationship.
>
> Proposal 4):
>
> In Section 3
>
> Change:
>
> “
>
> *[message id] : IRI (0..1)*
>
> An IRI that uniquely identifies this message in time and space. No two 
> messages with a distinct application intent may share a [message id] 
> property. A message MAY be retransmitted for any purpose including 
> communications failure and MAY use the same [message id] property. The 
> value of this property is an opaque IRI whose interpretation beyond 
> equivalence is not defined in this specification. If a reply is 
> expected, this property MUST be present.
>
> “
>
> to:
>
> “
>
> *[message id] : IRI (0..1)*
>
> An IRI that uniquely identifies this message in time and space. No two 
> messages with a distinct application intent may share a [message id] 
> property. A message MAY be retransmitted for any purpose including 
> communications failure and MAY use the same [message id] property. The 
> value of this property is an opaque IRI whose interpretation beyond 
> equivalence is not defined in this specification.
>
> “
>
> If the response is going to anonymous destination, there is no need 
> for the relatesTo to be sent in the reply message.
>
> Proposal 5):
>
> In Section 3.1:
>
> Change:
>
> “
>
> */wsa:RelatesTo*
>
> This OPTIONAL (repeating) element information item contributes one 
> abstract [relationship] property value, in the form of a (IRI, IRI) 
> pair. The [children] property of this element (which is of type 
> xs:anyURI) conveys the [message id] of the related message. This 
> element MUST be present if the message is a reply.
>
> “
>
> to:
>
> “
>
> */wsa:RelatesTo*
>
> This OPTIONAL (repeating) element information item contributes one 
> abstract [relationship] property value, in the form of a (IRI, IRI) 
> pair. The [children] property of this element (which is of type 
> xs:anyURI) conveys the [message id] of the related message. This 
> element MUST be present if the message is a reply to a message 
> containing a wsa:MessageId element.
>
> “
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 00:26:35 UTC