Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referencedby the RDDL documents?

[Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org>]

Doug... in haste...

http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/rddl.html

The RDDL template provides a model for "This version:" and "Previous version:"
for the prose spec, schema(s), etc.

================================================================================
This version:
[link to this version of the specification] (include hyperlink)
Previous version:
[link to previous version of the specification] (include hyperlink) 
================================================================================

I'm sure Mary would be happy to discuss changes/improvements to the RDDL model
if you'd like to suggest changes.

I don't have time to chase down the references just now, but I recall that the
W3C RDDL documents and the xmlsoap.org RDDLs both (though not uniformally)
make provision for citing multiple spec URIs so as to help the reader
identify

* the current spec URI
* other relevant spec URIs for specs which use the same namespace

I think it would be a good idea for a RDDL to provide a list of spec
URIs for all versions of the spec which use a given namespace.  Visiting
any instance and inspecting the "This", "Latest", "Previous" should
produce the chain of URIs, but the RDDL listing could provide a more
efficient reference set if it included a URI for each of the specs
(to date).

Here are a couple (not the best) examples:

http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy/
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/eventing/

I'll make a note to discuss this with Mary, as we have time.  She's
TC Admin and the template keeper.

-rcc

Robin Cover
OASIS, Chief Information Architect
Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
http://xml.coverpages.org/


On Tue, 6 May 2008, Doug Davis wrote:

> The first two issues are kind of interesting. Does anyone know how the use
> of RDDL is supposed to work when the docs change over time but their
> namespaces don't? How are we supposed to allow people to easily reference
> a particular version of the specs when multiple versions use the same
> namespace?
> Whose idea was it to use RDDL anyway? :-)
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> ----- Forwarded by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM on 05/06/2008 07:55 AM -----
>
> Peter Niblett <peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com>
> 05/02/2008 05:37 AM
>
> To
> ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL documents?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While I was doing Action Item 0143 I took a look at the RDDL documents at
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702
>
> and spotted a number of things that look like problems to me..
>
> 1. They have all been updated to talk about and point to the CD 01 of the
> latest versions of the specs (1.2 in the case of RM and RMP, and 1.1 in
> the case of MC). However since the namespace hasn't changed, this means
> that we no longer have RDDL documents associated with these namespace that
> point to the approved OASIS standard specifications.  Would it not be more
> appropriate to keep the RDDL documents pointing at the current standard
> until we have standard versions of the new specifications?  Apologies if
> the TC has already discussed this, and decided to make this update to the
> RDDL documents.
>
> This is particularly noticeable, because the TC home pages (both members
> and public) contain links which claim to be for the standard versions of
> the specs, but actually take you to these RDDL documents which point to
> the new CDs.
>
> 2. The documents do try and contain a pointer to the previous versions.
> However they try to this by including a pointer in the "Related Namespace"
> section. Since the namespace hasn't changed, this turns out to be a
> self-referencing link.
>
> For example the last line of  the RM RDDL at
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702 is " Previous
> WS-ReliableMessaging v1.1 namespace:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702   "
>
> (also the link in the MC RDDL implies that the previous version of MC is
> 1.1, when in fact it is 1.0)
>
> 3. The RDDL documents have links to new versions of the Schema and WSDL
> files. These new versions are at
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsrm-1.2-schema-200702.xsd
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsrm-1.2-wsdl-200702.wsdl
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-schema-200702.xsd
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-wsdl-200702.wsdl
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702/wsrmp-1.2-schema-200702.xsd
>
>
> However these aren't the files referenced by the CD's currently in public
> review. The CD's still reference the RM1.1 Errata 01, RMP1.1 Errata 01,
> MC1.0 Errata 01 versions of these files. Moreover the WSDLs in the list
> above actually import the Errata01 schemas, not the schemas from the list
> above. Given that the only difference between these "new files" and the
> Errata01 is one character in the copyright statement,  I would have
> thought that the RDDLs should link to the Errata01 versions, so that they
> reference the same files that are declared as Normative by the new specs
> (once the new versions become standard).
>
>
> Peter Niblett
> IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
> Lead Architect WebSphere Messaging
> +44 1962 815055
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
>
>
>
>
>