Re: [ebxml-bp] Proposal concerning versioning and ProcessSpecificationattributes

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Dale, can you review the technical specification and advise if the 
document integrates this work and if any other details should be 
provided. Please provide any comments to the list. 
Thanks....pre-vacation motivator :>) ....




Dale Moberg wrote:

> In today’s TC call,
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/10099/ebbp-mtgminutes-mm1-111504.txt
>
> it was agreed that we needed to support at least three types of versioning
>
>    1. versioning of schema by namespace (with very minor variant
>       versions within a namespace handled by different URLs for schema
>       location). The namespace URL always contains the most up-to-date
>       schema.
>
> [Nothing special needs to be done for this now.]
>
>    2. versioning by specification (the actual documentation that
>       provides the semantics for the notation in the schema)
>    3. versioning of the artifact/instance so that BP modelers can
>       track differences or group similarities.
>
> It appears to be agreed that the same instance versioning could in 
> principle be used by two models with either different schemas or even 
> different specification levels.
>
> It appears to be agreed that uuid would never be reused, so that even 
> a change introduced by AttributeSubstitution (to business documents’ 
> schemas, for example), would be marked by a new uuid. So while the 
> same instance version could appear in two documents with different 
> schema namespaces, for example, they each would have different uuids.
>
> [It is implicitly accepted that the use of uuid for CPPA and Messaging 
> Service values will need to change to reflect a realignment with BPSS 2.0]
>
> The proposed changes to the schema to meet the above agreements:
>
>    1. Add an attribute with the name “instanceVersion” to the
>       ProcessSpecification element (zeroOrOne)
>    2. Add an attribute with the name “specificationVersion” to the
>       ProcessSpecification element (zeroOrOne).
>    3. Remove the attribute with the name “version”
>    4. In transforms from 1.x to 2.x, map “version” to
>       “specificationVersion”
>    5. Illustrate the use of RIM lid (logical id) in an example as a
>       value for the nameId attribute on ProcessSpecification
>
> The resulting schema is attached.
>
> These changes were in response to earlier list messages asking for 
> additional versioning support.
>
> I am not certain about whether the new attributes should be required, 
> so they are marked as zeroOrOne (optional) currently.
>
> If you believe that one or both should be required please comment to 
> the list.
>