Re: [ubl-dev] Low level versioning

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

My opinion:

I do wonder how useful particulate versioning would be
since there are some inponderables which seem to get
neglected (unless I'm missing something here).

If I version each complex type (in W3C Schema terms) then
add a new element to such a type, properly one would assume
the version number of that type might change. But what if
I do this during a standard re-release: Would all version
identifiers change for the whole schema irrespective of
which complex types have actually changed?

If the answer to that question is yes for some and no for
others, someone is going to get a versioning system which
doesn't match their requirements and maybe they would be
no better than if they had none at all (or worse because they
have to cater for something they don't want and are hindered
in what they do want, let alone the potential for
misunderstanding.

Then it gets worse: If the answer to the question is no - I
only see a change of version ID when a change has occurred
since the previous version - what then happens if a change
is made in the version of something reused within another,
containing complex type but the complex type itself does
not change; should the version ID change?

Again whether you say yes or no, some won't get the type of
versioning they are after and might prefer none at all than
something contrary to what they consider appropriate.

All the best

Steve




Quoting Fraser Goffin <goffinf@googlemail.com>:

> There has been some recent discussion in my organisation as to whether
> there is a need to provide verion information for each
> element/aggregate in our standard data model.
>
> Currently versioning is only visible to implementers on the business
> transaction level schema (namespace), that is, individual parts are
> not individually versioned.
>
> Does UBL provide individual version information for each business
> entity, and are each of these visible when entities are combined to
> form a business transaction ?
>
> I have a feeling that traceability to the core data model needs to
> reflect version, but I remain to be convinced about whether it is
> necessary at this level at run-time.
>
> All opinions welcome.
>
> Fraser.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This publicly archived list supports open discussion on implementing 
> the UBL OASIS Standard. To minimize spam in the
> archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Alternately, using email: list-[un]subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> List archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/
> Committee homepage: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
>
>