Re: [ebxml-bp] 2/2/2004: Evolving Versioning Requirements - Work Item 7 Addl

[Kenji Nagahashi <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Discussion|oasis.ebBP;
Topic|Work Item 7 Versioning;
Point|OASIS URNs;
kn@
Hi All,

Nikora kindly reminded me of the OASIS URNs. Thanks.
Per RFC 3121 <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3121.txt> "A URN 
Namespace for OASIS",  targetNamespace for BPSS 2.0 schema will be:

"urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-bp:bpss:2.0"
@kn

> Hi Kanji,
> 
> Here is how ebXML Registry uses OASIS URNs for namespaces:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.5/schema/rim.xsd
> 
> As you can see it is conformant to OASIS URN, and at the same time includes
> the version of the spec
> 
> <snip>
> targetNamespace="urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-regrep:rim:xsd:2.5"
> </snip>
> 
> Regards,
> Nikola
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenji Nagahashi [mailto:nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:34 PM
> Cc: ebXML BP
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] 2/2/2004: Evolving Versioning Requirements - Work
> Item 7 Addl
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> About Work Item 7, Versioning:
> 
> I reviewed work item 7 to find original issue raised by Michael Wang was 
> about "versioning of BPSS XSD schema".
> Mike's point was that BPSS specification should use different namespace 
> URI for different version of schema. I think this is quite easy to 
> address. Here are some observations:
> 
> - BPSS 1.05 uses namespace URI "http://www.ebxml.org/BusinessProcess";.
> - CPPA 2.0 uses 
> "http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/schema/cpp-cpa-2_0.xsd";.
> 
> If CPPA is following OASIS convention (Do we have such a thing?), 
> naturally we would use
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-bp/schema/bp-2_0.xsd
> 
> for BPSS 2.0. I believe this resolves the work item 7 and we can close 
> it if everyone agrees.
> 
> And, if I understand right, recent discussions on versioning is 
> completely different from this work item 7. It was not about versioning 
> of BPSS specification itself, but about versioning of business process 
> description written in BPSS. We should add another work item for this 
> issue, I suppose. I'll post another message to describe this new work item.
> 
> Let me know if I missing something here. Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Kenji
> 
> Monica J. Martin wrote:
> 
> 
>>Discussion|oasis.ebBP; Topic|Work Item 7 Versioning; 
>>Point|Requirements identification; mm1@ Kenji: We discussed last week
>> about versioning.  It appears we have a few evolving requirements 
>>related to versioning, and our work may complement: * To identify and
>> make available key BPSS elements * To support the identification of 
>>the process description (specification) * To support the 
>>identification of the computable process description (schema) * To 
>>support any alignment to the ebXML set of specifications
>>
>>I'd encourage others to comment or revise above. Thanks. @mm1
>>
>>Point|Other potential business requirements; mm1@
>>
>>The potential exists to have requirements to reconcile instances and 
>>namespaces. This was discussed mid-last week in another ebXML forum. 
>>This may apply to BPSS instances, fragments, elements or the process 
>>description.
>>
>>@mm1
>>
>>
> 
>