[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposed resolution to i017
Okay, but then IMO, we should collapse the yyyy/mm to yyyymm as there's no need to create a heirarchy. Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html phone: +1 508 377 9295 "Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 08/11/2005 03:02:30 PM: > I agree we are actually fairly close in our proposals. If each published > version of the spec is backward compatible with the last I am much more > sympathetic to keeping the namespace the same. However each publication > should be reviewed to determine if that is true. > > In order to be more consistent with the AIR guidelines I will move to > modify my proposal to have the form of the namespace have a trailing > date rather than leading as follows: > http://docs.oasis-open.org/[productname]/yyyy/mm/ > > I do note that both this proposal and my original are consistent with > the AIR guidelines. There is no provision for the form of a namespace > url there, only that it resolves to a RDDL document on an OASIS server. > Your original proposal and my revised proposal above are both more > consistent with the persistent url guidelines in section 7, however > those guidelines are for specific artifacts and are not referred to by > the namespace requirements in section 6.2. Similarly there is nothing in > the AIR guidelines that support adding trailing indicators to the > persistent url for a namespace url, an artifact, or any other purpose. > > Now all of that said I think this should be used as input to the TAB > regarding the requirements for namespaces and the use of persistent > urls. It would be nice if the answer simply came from the AIR guidelines > so we could refer to it in this and future work. > > Regards, > Marc g > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:12 AM > To: Marc Goodner > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposed resolution to i017 > > Marc, > > The reasons you cite for keeping the namespace mutable are not > inconsistent > with my proposal. However, under my proposal, the namespace *could* be > the > final version *as long as the changes we make are backwards compatible* > and that > *would* allow implementations of earlier drafts of the spec to interop > with later > versions which would be far more beneficial to the end users than one in > > which > they HAD to rely/wait on the providers of implementations all finally > aligning on the > final version. > > There is no reason that the "version" component of the namespace match > that of the > spec itself. None. It's just some value that we assign to allow for the > namespace URI to > be differentiate it from other "versions". > > Furthermore, the convention you propose is explicitly not in conformance > > with the draft AIR > guidelines as they state that the value should be: > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/[productname]... > > The approach you propose would actually be far worse from an interop > perspective, > not better as you suggest. > > All we need to do to prevent interop issues is ensure that any > non-backwards compatible > changes to the schema/spec result in a *different* namespace URI. > Marrying > the namespace > URI to a dated publication of a draft spec is, IMNSHO, a misguided > approach, especially > with a schema as relatively straight-forward as the one we have now. > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > "Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 08/04/2005 04:05:38 PM: > > > I disagree. We should not assign a final namespace now, we should > simply > > define the convention to use. Anytime a spec changes that may affect > > conformance or adds a new feature the namespace should change. We can > > not make the determination now that this will be true for the work of > > this TC from now until we reach the point of producing an OASIS > > Standard. > > > > It is a virtual certainty that products will ship that have support > for > > intermediary versions of the spec. If the namespace is constant across > > all of these it will make interoperability in the field much more > > difficult. Each published version of the spec should have its own > unique > > namespace. The churn required in code to do this is far less painful > > than the pain customers will feel trying to plug together > > implementations that unbeknownst to them conform to two (or more) > > different versions of the spec. Having a distinct uri for each > published > > version of the spec, and subsequently used in products that ship with > > support for those versions, helps greatly in preventing this. > > > > I do agree we do not need to resolve i015 before determining the form > of > > the namespace on the same grounds that you do below. > > > > I propose the following resolution to i017[1]: > > > > The namespace URI used for our specs should follow the draft AIR > > Guidelines as follows: > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/yyyy/mm/[productname] > > Where [productname] is the name from the resolution of issue i015 [2] > > for the respective specs and yyyy/mm is the date of the published > > version of the specification. > > > > [1] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/13809/Re > > liableMessagingIssues.xml#i017 > > > > [2] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/13809/Re > > liableMessagingIssues.xml#i015 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:52 AM > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [ws-rx] proposed resolution to i017 > > > > All, > > > > I propose that we resolve issue i017 [1] as follows: > > > > The namespace URI used for our specs should follow the draft AIR > > guidelines. e.g. > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/[productname]1 > > > > where [productname] is whatever we conclude for issue i015 [2] for the > > > respective specs. The trailing '1' > > signifies the "version" of the *namespace* but is NOT in any way tied > to > > > > the version/revision of the corresponding > > schema for that namespace (see my previous rants on this subject). > This > > will allow us to assign a final namespace > > URI for the specifications that we are chartered to produce (rather > than > > > > having to either guess at a date, or worse > > yet, change the namespace name with each successive published draft -- > > > BLECH!) > > > > I would also assert that we do not need to resolve i015 before > resolving > > > > that the form of the namespace > > URI will be as above... we just fill in the blank once we have settled > > on > > a [productname] for our specs. > > > > Benefits: this yields a nice SHORT namespace URI (see my previous > rants) > > > > it allows us to assign a final URI > > now, rather than waiting until we are essentially done (good for > > implementation as it reduces unnecessary churn > > to tweak the namespace URI in code). > > > > [1] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/13809/Re > > liableMessagingIssues.xml#i017 > > [2] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/13809/Re > > liableMessagingIssues.xml#i015 > > > > Cheers, > > > > Christopher Ferris > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html > > phone: +1 508 377 9295 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]