Re: Do MessageLabel-0006 and MessageLabel-0014 state the same requirement?

Lawrence,

Good catch. Yes. These are logically equivalent. They are both equivalent 
to the more symmetric assertion:

The messageLabel attribute information item of a binding message reference 
element information item MUST be present or there MUST be a unique 
placeholder message with {direction} equal to the message direction.

This is therefore editorial. I'll replace these assertions by the 
symmetrical version.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
11/14/2006 01:32 PM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
Do MessageLabel-0006 and MessageLabel-0014 state the same requirement?







MessageLabel-0006 states 
The messageLabel attribute information item of a binding message reference 
element information item MUST be present if the message exchange pattern 
has more than one placeholder message with {direction} equal to the 
message direction. ?

MessageLabel-0014 states 
If the messageLabel attribute information item of a binding message 
reference element information item is absent then there MUST be a unique 
placeholder message with {direction} equal to the message direction. ?

The way I read these assertions the first states the requirement for a 
message label in terms of the binding message reference and the second 
states the requirement in terms of the interface message reference. 

Do these two assertions state the same requirement? 

Thanks, 

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@ca.ibm.com