Re: [ebxml-cppa] Versioning for CPP: new proposal to drop versionattribute on CPP.

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>]

Arvola,

No, I was referring to the version attribute within the CPP/A
instance document, not the schema (although the values were
meant to be the same for both).

Cheers,

Chris

Arvola Chan wrote:

> Dale and Chris:
> 
> In the top-level Schema element in the XSD, there is a version attribute. I
> wonder if Chris is referring to that version attribute as opposed to the
> version attribute within the CollaborationProtocolProfile element.
> 
> The sections related the the version attribute of the Schema element, and
> the version attribute of the CollaborationProtocolProfile element have
> pretty much stayed unchanged since the 1.0 CPPA spec. Here are excerpts from
> the 1.0 spec:
> 
> "
> 4.4 Version of the Specification
> Whenever this specification is modified, it SHALL be given a new version
> number.  The value of the version attribute of the Schema element of the XML
> Schema document SHALL be equal to the version of the specification.
> "
> 
> "
> 7.4 CollaborationProtocolProfile element
> The CollaborationProtocolProfile element is the root element of the CPP XML
> document.
> The REQUIRED [XML] Namespace[XMLNS] declarations for the basic document are
> as follows:
> · The default namespace:
> xmlns="http://www.ebxml.org/namespaces/tradePartner",
> · XML Digital Signature namespace:
> xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#",
> · and the XLINK namespace: xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink".
> 
> In addition, the CollaborationProtocolProfile element contains an IMPLIED
> version attribute that indicates the version of the CPP. Its purpose is to
> provide versioning capabilities for instances of an enterprise's CPP. The
> value of the version attribute SHOULD be a string representation of a
> numeric value such as "1.0" or "2.3". The value of the version string SHOULD
> be changed with each change made to the CPP document after it has been
> published.
> "
> 
> I agree with Marty that there is no need for a version attribute in the
> CollaborationProtocolProfile element. The version attribute for the Schema
> element in the XSD will initially be set to 2.0. Since the CPPA namespace
> will be
> "http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/schema/cpp-cpa-2_0.xsd" and
> will resolve to a schema located at the same URI, we need to make provision
> for the possibility that errors in the schema may be discovered after the
> spec and the schema have been published. Rather than just replacing the
> contents of the XSD located at the namespace URI, it may be desirable to
> update the version attribute of the schema element to indicate that an
> updated version of the schema has been placed at the namespace URI.
> 
> The CPP/A TC needs to agree on a scheme for how the schema may be updated to
> deal with bug fixes and preferrably describe the chosen scheme within the
> specification itself.
> 
> -Arvola
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
> To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>; "Arvola Chan (E-mail)"
> <arvola@tibco.com>
> Cc: "Cppa (E-mail)" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:35 AM
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Versioning for CPP: new proposal to drop version
> attribute on CPP.
> 
> 
> If this is what the version attribute was for,
> we do not have it documented correctly.
> 
> Was this also the intent for the version attribute
> on CollaborationProtocolAgreement?
> 
> Arvola, are we still committed to a schema
> versioning scheme that makes this use of a
> version attribute useful>
> 
> Dale
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:56 AM
> To: Dale Moberg
> Cc: Cppa (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Versioning for CPP: new proposal to drop
> version attribute on CPP.
> 
> 
> My recollection was the the version attribute applied to
> the CPP schema version, not the instance of a given CPP
> that was somehow modified. It has the same semantics
> as the version attribute in XSLT[1].
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/tr/xslt
> 
> Dale Moberg wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am stumped on why we have versioning for a CPP.
>>
>>The cppid is to supply a unique identifier for a CPP.
>>For the sake of argument, let's say that this means
>>that no two CPPs can have the same cppid.
>>
>>When are CPPs the same? For the sake of argument, let us say
>>that CPPs are the same when their hash values, for
>>the purpose of signing, are the same. Conversely, we
>>have two CPPs when their hash values differ.
>>
>>So if we changed the version _value_, and left all else
>>the same in a CPP, we would have two CPPs with different
>>hash values and the same cppid. This contradicts
>>our assumption that no two CPPs have the same cppid.
>>
>>Therefore, we cannot really have _two_ CPPs that differ
>>only by version number (on the previous assumptions).
>>
>>So we need to say what it means for CPPs to differ
>>enough to be different versions, but not differ
>>enough to warrant having different cppids. I think
>>this is either a rabbit hole or a rat hole, and
>>I now think that either
>>way we should avoid entering therein.
>>
>>I am now inclined to say we should drop the version attribute
>>on the CollaborationProtocolProfile element. We should also
>>just say that the cppid value should be a globally unique
>>identifier.
>>
>>Should we say anything about format of that guid?
>>Should we reference some other standard that has
>>solved the issue of how collisions
>>in creation of this identifier are avoided?
>>If so, does anyone know what standard would be good
>>to reference here?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>