RE: [ebxml-bp] CD 2.0.2 identifiers and filenames

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Here are the preferences and conventions that the TC was working under
as far as I can recall.

1. The namespace value will not change until the specification version
changes (or at least this is the current intent).
2. The namespace will contain a part "2.0" that matches the
specification version value.
3. The TC will follow the artifact conventions for the filenames and
associated URLs as far as they are understood by the TC editors.
4. The numbering on files names will have a "major.minor.release" format
5. The specificationVersion value will be "2.0"
6. The namespace URL will resolve to the most current approved schema
file (using redirection)
7. The most current schema always will have the schemaLocation value for
its namespace as the URL ending with the schema artifact filename whose
final pattern is:
major.minor.release.'xsd'




-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:05 AM
To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-bp] CD 2.0.2 identifiers and filenames

ebBP TC,

Greetings. Just to note that the change of version identifier
from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 will require changes in the UBP, UBL
SBS (spec), etc. The namespace is, as I understand it, immune
from this change (deliberately so) since the namespace just
has 2.0 (http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxmlbp/ebbp-2.0) 
but how about the schema names? The existing convention
seems to be to make the main schema "ebbp-2.0.2.xsd" and
signal schemas "ebbp-signals-2.0.2.xsd". To me this seems preferable. 
However, I'd just note (following the convention we are trying in 
UBL 2) that if there is the plan to keep instances fully compatible 
with future minor versions of the schemas, then this may be 
helped if the filename is as immune to version minor changes 
as the namespace; in this case calling the schema
"ebbp-2.0.xsd" makes it unnecessary to specify which minor
(?.?.x) version is being used as the schema for a particular instance.

The latter may not be a good idea for ebBP since an instance is not 
necessarily compatible with past minor version schemas (for
example instances having the externalDocumentDefRef attribute
will not be valid against schemas from before minor version 2.0.2)
so it may be better for ebBP to be encourage instances to be 
more precise when pointing to the ebBP schemas by including the
full version identifier in the filename. A factor to consider, with UBL
hindsight, is whether XSD derivation will be used to ensure such
backwards compatibility of future minor version schemas. If not
then that might, I think, favour again the fully qualified (2.0.2)
version in the schema filename.

If the schema files will be called <something>-2.0.2.xsd, I would hope
that the final edit to the schemas would leave them as just 
"ebbp-2.0.2.xsd", "ebbp-signals-2.0.2.xsd", etc. If not, might I plead 
that their filenames be established as soon as possible to allow the
editing of the examples and UBL UBP definitions to make them
accurate for the final filenames. 

[I note that with ebBP the backwards-compatible minor versions
are presently identified after the second period (x in ?.?.x) - not
so with UBL (x in ?.x).]

Many thanks.

All the best

Steve