Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 2 November 2005
Please forgive my possible niaivety: I think these two decisions are contradictory (I'll be pleasantly surprised if someone proves me wrong). I thought with the versioning team we had proved that you cannot publish deltas for highly nested schemas like UBL without using substitution groups. All the best Steve The minutes read: Question 3: What, specifically, determines whether a new version of the schema is actually a 'minor' or 'major' release? (If the schema only includes the deltas, and utilizes xsd:derivation concepts, the answer should be simpler than if the versioning is strictly model-based.) Discussion: We have already adopted the definitions given by Eduardo Gutentag in his message of 18 October 2005, but we note that his definition of backward compatibility transposes X and Y: c) backwards compatibility -- a schema X is said to be backwards compatible with a schema Y if documents that validate against schema X also validate against schema Y, and schema X follows (in time, or in version) schema Y. In other words, if all documents that validate against MySchema v1.0 also validate against MySchema v1.1, then MySchema v1.1 is said to be backwards compatible; but there is no expectation that any document that validates against MySchema v1.1 must also by necessity validate against MySchema v1.0 The example shows that the definition should read "and schema Y follows (in time, or in version) schema X." Question 4: Is (are?) Substitution Groups still on the table? AGREED: We will not use substitution groups for minor versioning.