CR108

As I tried to get to sleep I pondered Amy's comments on CR108, and I am not sure, but I think Amy may be mistaken.
 
Is it really wrong to have two messages corresponding to the same message placeholder? With fault messages we already accept a multiplicity of messages - the fault returning may be any of the defined messages. Can a similar thing apply to, for example, the only "in" placeholder? Can we accept message A or message B as the in message in a message exchange pattern? It's unambiguous - either message corresponds to the "in" placeholder; there can only be one message corresponding to that placeholder in the exchange, but it could be either of the messages corresponding to that placeholder.
 
We definitely need to disambiguate placeholders - no question. And we need to tie messages to placeholders. But I suspect the mapping is one-way - I'm not sure that we need only one message tied to a given placeholder.
 
Or has my lack of sleep confused me?
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C