RE: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorab le o n the same assertion



I understand what you are saying, namely in some cases (perhaps most)
marking "ignorable" assertions as optional also, does not make sense, from a
common sense perspective.  However, the specification does not impose any
restrictions, or more specifically it does not preclude assertions being
marked as both optional and ignorable. If it is really desirable that
"ignorable" assertions should not be marked optional and thereby providing
an alternative where, the ignorable assertions do not even be present, then
the restriction needs to be present, preferably in the core specification.
Barring that, minimally I would like this be addressed and clarified,
pointing out why this is not a best practice, in the guidelines document. 






[] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:00 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri; Henry, William;
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorab
le o n the same assertion




It's difficult not to start thinking that a strict mode is not working as
expected. As far as I understand, one of the goals of the strict mode is to
ensure that ignorable assertions will cause the intersection to fail unless
the consumer explicitly recognizes them. That is, a consumer wishes to fail
if it encounters unknown assertions which are ignorable for the intersection
purposes, for ex, a consumer does not wish this assertion to go unnoticed :

<foo:logging wsp:ignorable="true"/>

<foo:makeYourDataAvailable wsp:ignorable="true"/>

Still, a producer can just mark assertions like these ones as wsp:optional
and bypass the strict mode, as optionality possesses the 'ignorability'
property unless some further restrictions are introduced



Cheers, Sergey



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Prasad Yendluri <>  

To: Henry, <>  William ; Prasad Yendluri
<>  ;

Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:23 PM

Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorab
le o n the same assertion


wsp:Optional is just a syntactic sugar, for two alternatives one with the
assertion and one without.

If an assertion say "A" also had wsp:Ignorable=true, then one alternative
would have the assertion A with @wsp:Ignorable=true and other where the
assertion A would not be present. This is what we discussed at the
Burlington f2f IIRC. What is the use case that would preclude the use of
both on the same assertion? If we find one, then this issue becomes a LC
issue on the Framework document.






[] On Behalf Of Henry, William
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable
o n the same assertion


Is this really the case? I'm not sure the intent was ever to have both these
in that same assertion. Was it?

I'd have thought the guidelines should have shown that these were for two
different types of use case.  Can some explain the use case that was dreamed
up where the make sense together?


William Henry
Enterprise Architect, Director
IONA Technologies Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thu Jan 18 17:05:29 2007
Subject: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable o
n the same assertion

Title: Provide clear guidance on the specification of @wsp:optional=true and
@wsp:Ignorable=true on the same assertion

Target:  Guidelines Document


The framework specification does not explicitly state if an assertion can be
marked both optional and ignorable. However, as we discussed since
@wsp:optional is just a syntactic simplification, it is permitted to mark an
assertion with both the @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable with the value of
"true" for both.

I ask that the guidelines document add some guidance to clarify this aspect.

Justification: No clarify in this aspect anywhere else

Proposal: Add a text to the guidelines document to clarify that both the
attributes wsp:optional and wsp:Ignorable with the value of "true" for both,
can be specified on the same assertion



Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 18:49:50 UTC