Hi,

When I pick up the schema adjusted for biztalk at the xCBL home page and
make a Specification out of it everything is OK. But when I start the mappin
g
process I ran into trouble.

I have noticed that in the Orderresponse document their are quite a few
fields that are required according to the reference tab in the biztalk
editor.
The Orderresponse consists of three major groups: OrderResponseHeader,
OrderResponseDetail, OrderResponseSummary. In the reference tab you find tha
t
only OrderResponseHeader has a minimum occurrence of 1 the other two have a
minimum occurrence of 0. This should mean that both OrderResponseDetail and
OrderResponseSummary are optional, shouldn't? A field that has required in
the reference tab and occurs under for instance the OrderResponseDetail part
should not be considered as a field that need to be mapped even if it is not
mapped?

When I start a new mapping I get an error for all required fields that are
not mapped Wherever thay appear in th file. Even if they appear under a grou
p
which is considered optional.

Of course a workaround for this problem is to alter the required YES into NO
for all these fields but I don't really like that option. Because I might
cause fields that needs to be required to be non-required.

Can anyone help me with this issue?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I had a similar issue mapping against a converted cXML DTD. I wasn't getting
errors but warnings about required fields. The warnings can be ignored and
the project will still compile. I ended up looking through the entire schema
and making the changes required to prevent the warnings.

--
Jeff Lynch
"A BizTalk Enthusiast"
http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/jlynch/



"Netaen" <Netaen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3A395B90-E127-45CE-9ECC-5A89649D8A87@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> When I pick up the schema adjusted for biztalk at the xCBL home page and
> make a Specification out of it everything is OK. But when I start the
> mapping
> process I ran into trouble.
>
> I have noticed that in the Orderresponse document their are quite a few
> fields that are required according to the reference tab in the biztalk
> editor.
> The Orderresponse consists of three major groups: OrderResponseHeader,
> OrderResponseDetail, OrderResponseSummary. In the reference tab you find
> that
> only OrderResponseHeader has a minimum occurrence of 1 the other two have
> a
> minimum occurrence of 0. This should mean that both OrderResponseDetail
> and
> OrderResponseSummary are optional, shouldn't? A field that has required in
> the reference tab and occurs under for instance the OrderResponseDetail
> part
> should not be considered as a field that need to be mapped even if it is
> not
> mapped?
>
> When I start a new mapping I get an error for all required fields that are
> not mapped Wherever thay appear in th file. Even if they appear under a
> group
> which is considered optional.
>
> Of course a workaround for this problem is to alter the required YES into
> NO
> for all these fields but I don't really like that option. Because I might
> cause fields that needs to be required to be non-required.
>
> Can anyone help me with this issue?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I feared that solution. I must make a correction, I didn't get any errors
they were warnings and I have tested to compile the mapping and that works
even though the warnings are present. But when the resulting file is
validated against the specification I still have the problem with required
fields that need to be taken care of.

Regards
Anders Ekman
Papyrus Network AB

"Jeff Lynch" wrote:

> I had a similar issue mapping against a converted cXML DTD. I wasn't getti
ng
> errors but warnings about required fields. The warnings can be ignored and
> the project will still compile. I ended up looking through the entire sche
ma
> and making the changes required to prevent the warnings.
>
> --
> Jeff Lynch
> "A BizTalk Enthusiast"
> http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/jlynch/
>
>
>
> "Netaen" <Netaen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3A395B90-E127-45CE-9ECC-5A89649D8A87@microsoft.com... 
>
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

You can ignore the warning message about required fields.

Do you need help with the last problem (you said that map output doesn't val
idate against the schema). Can you provide more details? Can you attach your
 schema and
map output?

Thanks,
Tatyana

--------------------
>Thread-Topic: Required Fields
>thread-index: AcSQykHCqmbtHYLFQciH48A7pk2tpA==
>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 195.67.70.253
>From: "examnotes" <Netekan@discussions.microsoft.com>
>References:  <3A395B90-E127-45CE-9ECC-5A89649D8A87@microsoft.com> <O99gomJk
EHA.3724@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>
>Subject: Re: Required Fields
>Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:53:03 -0700
>Lines: 64
>Message-ID: <9D28EECC-1EBF-4F0A-9844-425E6D828204@microsoft.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="Utf-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Importance: normal
>Priority: normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.biztalk.tools
>NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.1.29
>Path: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.biztalk.tools:4025
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.biztalk.tools
>
>I feared that solution. I must make a correction, I didn't get any errors
>they were warnings and I have tested to compile the mapping and that works
>even though the warnings are present. But when the resulting file is
>validated against the specification I still have the problem with required
>fields that need to be taken care of.
>
>Regards
>Anders Ekman
>Papyrus Network AB
>
>"Jeff Lynch" wrote:
> 
>


--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. 
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note:  For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this mess
age are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they originated.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]