Re: [emix] namespaces, versioning, and backward compatibility

["Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>]

Anne -

On a regular basis, the OGC Members discuss (and argue) about various 
aspects of standards development and documentation. Many of these 
discussions have to do with XML schema (of course). After much discussion 
and input from the OGC Architecture Board, the Members vote on a directive 
(policy) related to a specific discussion. These directives are documented 
in a single OGC directives document (similar in intent to the ISO 
directives). The discussions are often lost in the dust of time, although 
some are well documented in white papers or OGC Engineering reports.

Anyway, the attached document is the current OGC directives document. Read 
section 13 for XML usage and documentation (including versioning) 
directives.

Cheers

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne Hendry" <ahendry@pacbell.net>
To: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>
Cc: <emix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [emix] namespaces, versioning, and backward compatibility


> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks.  I would find the rationale for the policies would be the most 
> helpful as a basis for discussion, rather than the policies themselves. 
> If this is just for versioning hopefully there aren't many policies?
>
> Best,
> -A
>
> Carl Reed wrote, On 4/4/2011 9:07 AM:
>> Version numbers of documents and encodings and communication of 
>> version(s) supported by an interface has been an ongoing dialogue in the 
>> OGC ever since we started interface spec design. We have stated policies. 
>> If these policies would help in the EMIX version discussion, please let 
>> me know and I can provide them.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Hendry" <ahendry@pacbell.net>
>> To: <jeremy@lonmark.org>
>> Cc: <emix@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: [emix] namespaces, versioning, and backward compatibility
>>
>>
>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think using the built-in attribute is very straightforward and 
>>> easy to maintain.
>>>
>>> The aspect of using minor/major version numbers that has the most draw 
>>> for me is that the format has recognizable meaning since it is used in 
>>> most software versioning which should be familiar to people working with 
>>> the standard schemas.  You can tell right away if you are looking at a 
>>> major version (3.0) which may break compatibility, or a minor version 
>>> that has a stable base (2.3.1).  How often have you made decisions on 
>>> what to download just looking at those numbers?  I know I do that all 
>>> the time. The recognition is instantaneous.  You can make decisions 
>>> based on that immediate understanding.  It makes it easier, and more 
>>> clear, for our eventual implementors and for end users as well.  No need 
>>> to delve into the release first -- there is some immediate intelligence 
>>> in the format and meaning of the numbers that is well understood in the 
>>> software world.
>>>
>>> I also believe that it would make it easier to automate checking (say in 
>>> a tool or an application) on whether you are looking at a 
>>> backward-compatible version or not.
>>>
>>> -Anne
>>>
>>> Jeremy Roberts wrote, On 4/4/2011 7:06 AM:
>>>> Hello, Anne:
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a great idea. I always hate invoking hindsight in a
>>>> bandage manner; this is forward thinking. The "version" attribute isa
>>>> part of "xs:schema" so I think we should use it (it's free and easy).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> - Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Anne Hendry [mailto:ahendry@pacbell.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 3:51 PM
>>>> To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Subject: [emix] namespaces, versioning, and backward compatibility
>>>>
>>>> I recall a discussion recently on versioning and backward
>>>> compatibility. I'd like to propose we use a major/minor versioning
>>>> scheme such that the major version is captured in the namespace but the
>>>> minor version is captured in the schema element 'version' attribute.
>>>> So, for instance, the current schema element declaration:
>>>>
>>>> <xs:schema targetNamespace="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/emix";
>>>> elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
>>>>
>>>> would become
>>>>
>>>> <xs:schema targetNamespace="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/emix-1";
>>>> elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
>>>> version="1.0">
>>>>
>>>> This would allow for minor versions to be created/released without
>>>> changing the namespace, maintaining backward compatibility across minor
>>>> versions (as long as no other changes were made that broke
>>>> compatibility).
>>>>
>>>> -Anne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>

06-135r9_Draft_revision_Policy_Directives_for_Writing_and_Publishing_OGC_Standards.doc