Re: [ebxml-jc] FW: Versioning compatibility matrix [reposted]

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

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacques Durand
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:03 PM
>> To: 'ian.c.jones@bt.com'; kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com
>> Cc: ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [ebxml-jc] Re: ebXML JC Telecon reminder
>
>1. Version annotation:
>----------------------
>
>Version annotation is a standard way to annotate a doc, a schema, an 
>implementation, a run-time artifact (e.g. message) with proper version ID.
>We'll have to decide where to recommend version annotations. It can be a 
>small XML document, just listed in a doc (e.g. Appendix) or inserted in 
>a schema:
>
><specificationId>
><fullname>ebXML Messaging Service</fullname>
><refname>ebMS</refname>
><version>2.0</version>
><revision></revision>
>[<feature> optionally, a subset of the spec is identified here <feature>]
><date>(xs:date)</date>
></specificationId>
>  
>
mm1: Only comment for now is that, currently in ebBP team we have had a 
work item created regarding versioning. In BPSS, we may have versioning 
of a business process description, an element itself [1] or a fragment. 
As an aside, that element or description has a name and name ID in BPSS. 
We just went through a fairly detailed discussion / exercise about the 
relevance of the identification vs. the name. We may have instances 
where the full name or refname don't change but the version and revision 
do. Given the use of this versioning, we may be looking for the name or 
its ID.  We have an open item for versioning related to but not stopping 
our decisions on name and name ID. However, I thought I should bring up 
this nuance.

[1] as the UID would change while the name may not.
This equates likely to the features Jacques suggested.

>NOTES: 
>- the "refname" is a contraction that is expected to be used in 
>other docs when they refer to this spec. E.g., in the reference section of
>other docs, for the above example, "[ebMS-2.0]" should be used, in a 
>standard way (reference = <refname> ["-" <version> ["-" <revision> ]])
>- run-time support should be recommended (e.g. an implementation 
>should be able to "return" such information when queried, e.g. via a Ping.)
>
>  
>