RE: Question regarding cardinality of [destination]

Thanks for spotting this, Anish. You are right. 

The WG also agreed that the other instance where the expression "(mandatory)" is used, in section 2.1,
"[address]: IRI (mandatory)" would be replaced with "[address]: IRI (1..1)".

Apologies for missing this,
Nilo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:10 PM
> To: Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; Rimas Rekasius
> Subject: Re: Question regarding cardinality of [destination]
> 
> 
> My recollection is that we decided to do this for [address] 
> property (in
> EPR) as well.
> Did I get this wrong?
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS) wrote:
> > 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 Wednesday, 18 May 2005 16:27:51 UTC