Re: [provision] One or many data models?

[Gearard Woods <gewoods@us.ibm.com>]

I should clarify what my argument is here because it really has less to do with supporting two data models than it has to do with building the 1.0 schema language and data model into the 2.0 spec. I am all in favour of allowing the transport of SPML 1.0 schema and data within 2.0 messages. What I don't think is a good idea is making it part of the spec. Once it becomes part of the spec then any implementation will have to support it and it will be perpetuated into all of the future work on the SPML. I would prefer that the means to use the schema language and SPML 1.0 data within the 2.0 framework should be done as was suggested in WS-Provisioning and as I demonstrated at the F2F, i.e. by allowing clients to discover the schema language in use by namespace, a "late-binding" approach if you will. This breaks the tight coupling between the schema language and the spec, and allows 2.0 to progress without having to carry the restrictions of 1.0 with it forever more.
Gerry


"Darran Rolls" <Darran.Rolls@waveset.com>

"Darran Rolls" <Darran.Rolls@waveset.com> 03/01/2004 09:17 PM

To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: [provision] One or many data models?

As discussed, the committee has to decide on the data model for the 2.0 specification. On the one hand, as prototyped by Jeff Bohren at the last F2F meeting, we can devise a solution that keeps the 1.0 DSML data model by adding an extensible schema "root" that allowed for its coexistence with a new "XML Schema" data model. The "cost" of this model is increased complexity. On the other hand we can take a single data model solution as proposed by Gerry Woods at the F2F and base 2.0 on a pure XML Schema data model at the "expense" of 1.0/ 2.0 compatibility and backwards support for 1.0 in a 2.0 compliant service.

Please consider this issue and ask questions/state preferences now. I propose we hold a ballot on this issue around the next committee con-call 3/16/04.

Thanks
Darran