Hi Peter,
Great questions. The fact that the same namespace is
being used by two different versions of the spec seems to say to me that we
need to list *both* on the namespace page. Otherwise, if you get to the
namespace document by traversing the link in the newer spec, you’ll think
you’ve arrived at the wrong place since the newer version isn’t
shown. In effect, you should have *two* normative reference sections –
one for the current OASIS Standard (+errata), and one for the spec currently
under development.
As far as the schema and wsdl files go, there should be
new versions of these as well – even if there is no difference between
the files. They need to be stored along with the specification to be considered
part of the specification.
Alternatively (and I think I like this plan better), you
could have a *main* namespace document that would then identify the two
versions of the specification to which that namespace applies. Each of those
would then link to a separate namespace document with the details for that
particular version. So, under “Related Resources” you would see two
lines:
Namespace details for spec title v1.0
Namespace details for spec title v1.1
And each of those would link to a separate namespace document.
Regards,
Mary
From: Peter Niblett
[mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:38 AM
To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: Mary McRae; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL
documents?
Mary
Thanks for the
pointer to these templates. I have a couple of questions
1. In general,
is the "Previous version" supposed to be used only in cases, such as
this, where there are two versions that share the same Namespace, or is it also
intended to be used when the Previous version had a different namespace (and
thus a different RDDL document)?
2. In cases
where there is an approved standard version of the spec and also a new version
under development that shares the same Namespace, then it's not clear what the
"This version" / "Previous version" values should be. It
would seem to me that we should either
a) Leave
"This version" pointing at the standard, and not reference the new
version at all until it becomes standard
b) Have
pointers to both, but mark them in some way to say which is the standard, and
which one is under development.
I think my
original third point would be best addressed by removing the "new"
Schema and WSDL files and having the RDDL just point to the old version
(regardless of the spec level), since the files are virtually identical and
since the new versions of the specs still reference the old files.
Regards
Peter Niblett
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
Lead Architect WebSphere Messaging
+44 1962 815055
"Mary
McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Sent by: Mary
McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>
07/05/2008
03:16
Please respond to
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
|
|
To
|
Peter
Niblett/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE:
[ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL documents?
|
|
Hi
all,
The first thing the TC should do is to update the RDDL documents to conform to
the OASIS-provided template. (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/rddl.html) You
will note that it contains information similar to the specification cover page
with regard to previous version of the specification document(s) as well as
schemas, wsdls, etc. which I think will resolve most of the issues other than
#3 below which seems to be more of an editorial problem in that the spec and
RDDL documents do not match.
Regards,
Mary
From: Peter Niblett
[mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:37 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL
documents?
While I was doing Action Item 0143 I took a look at the RDDL documents at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702
and spotted a number of things that look like problems to me..
1. They have all been updated to talk about and point to the CD 01 of the
latest versions of the specs (1.2 in the case of RM and RMP, and 1.1 in the
case of MC). However since the namespace hasn't changed, this means that we no
longer have RDDL documents associated with these namespace that point to the
approved OASIS standard specifications. Would it not be more appropriate
to keep the RDDL documents pointing at the current standard until we have
standard versions of the new specifications? Apologies if the TC has
already discussed this, and decided to make this update to the RDDL documents.
This is particularly noticeable, because the TC home pages (both members and
public) contain links which claim to be for the standard versions of the specs,
but actually take you to these RDDL documents which point to the new CDs.
2. The documents do try and contain a pointer to the previous versions. However
they try to this by including a pointer in the "Related Namespace"
section. Since the namespace hasn't changed, this turns out to be a self-referencing
link.
For example the last line of the RM RDDL at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702 is " Previous
WS-ReliableMessaging v1.1 namespace: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
"
(also the link in the MC RDDL implies that the previous version of MC is 1.1,
when in fact it is 1.0)
3. The RDDL documents have links to new versions of the Schema and WSDL files.
These new versions are at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsrm-1.2-schema-200702.xsd
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsrm-1.2-wsdl-200702.wsdl
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-schema-200702.xsd
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-wsdl-200702.wsdl
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702/wsrmp-1.2-schema-200702.xsd
However these aren't the files referenced by the CD's currently in public
review. The CD's still reference the RM1.1 Errata 01, RMP1.1 Errata 01, MC1.0
Errata 01 versions of these files. Moreover the WSDLs in the list above
actually import the Errata01 schemas, not the schemas from the list above.
Given that the only difference between these "new files" and the
Errata01 is one character in the copyright statement, I would have
thought that the RDDLs should link to the Errata01 versions, so that they
reference the same files that are declared as Normative by the new specs (once
the new versions become standard).
Peter Niblett
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
Lead Architect WebSphere Messaging
+44 1962 815055
Unless
stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Unless
stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU