ws-rx-editors message

Subject: RE: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL documents?

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
To: <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:07:06 -0600

Mary,
see if the attached doc looks ok to you. If so, I'll produce the rddl for wsrmp and wsmc.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com

"Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Sent by: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>

05/07/2008 09:48 AM

Please respond to
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>

To	"'Peter Niblett'" <peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com>, "'Robin Cover'" <robin@oasis-open.org>
cc	"'Mary McRae'" <marypmcrae@gmail.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL documents?

Hi Peter,

Great questions. The fact that the same namespace is being used by two different versions of the spec seems to say to me that we need to list *both* on the namespace page. Otherwise, if you get to the namespace document by traversing the link in the newer spec, you’ll think you’ve arrived at the wrong place since the newer version isn’t shown. In effect, you should have *two* normative reference sections – one for the current OASIS Standard (+errata), and one for the spec currently under development.

As far as the schema and wsdl files go, there should be new versions of these as well – even if there is no difference between the files. They need to be stored along with the specification to be considered part of the specification.

Alternatively (and I think I like this plan better), you could have a *main* namespace document that would then identify the two versions of the specification to which that namespace applies. Each of those would then link to a separate namespace document with the details for that particular version. So, under “Related Resources” you would see two lines:
Namespace details for spec title v1.0
Namespace details for spec title v1.1

And each of those would link to a separate namespace document.

Regards,

Mary

From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:38 AM
To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: Mary McRae; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL documents?

Mary

Thanks for the pointer to these templates. I have a couple of questions

1. In general, is the "Previous version" supposed to be used only in cases, such as this, where there are two versions that share the same Namespace, or is it also intended to be used when the Previous version had a different namespace (and thus a different RDDL document)?

2. In cases where there is an approved standard version of the spec and also a new version under development that shares the same Namespace, then it's not clear what the "This version" / "Previous version" values should be. It would seem to me that we should either

a) Leave "This version" pointing at the standard, and not reference the new version at all until it becomes standard
b) Have pointers to both, but mark them in some way to say which is the standard, and which one is under development.

I think my original third point would be best addressed by removing the "new" Schema and WSDL files and having the RDDL just point to the old version (regardless of the spec level), since the files are virtually identical and since the new versions of the specs still reference the old files.

Regards

Peter Niblett
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
Lead Architect WebSphere Messaging
+44 1962 815055

"Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Sent by: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>
07/05/2008 03:16

Please respond to
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>

To
Peter Niblett/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>

cc

Subject
RE: [ws-rx] What spec versions should be referenced by the RDDL documents?

Hi all,

The first thing the TC should do is to update the RDDL documents to conform to the OASIS-provided template. (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/rddl.html) You will note that it contains information similar to the specification cover page with regard to previous version of the specification document(s) as well as schemas, wsdls, etc. which I think will resolve most of the issues other than #3 below which seems to be more of an editorial problem in that the spec and RDDL documents do not match.

Regards,

Mary

From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:37 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
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

Title: Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)

Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)

February 28, 2008

Introduction

This document describes version 1.2 of the Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging) namespace. It also contains a directory of links to related resources using the Resource Directory Description Language (RDDL) 2.0.

Namespace URI Versioning Policy

It is the intent of the OASIS WS-RX Technical Committee that the Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging) namespace URI will not change arbitrarily with each subsequent revision of the corresponding WSDL or XML Schema documents but rather change only when a subsequent revision, published in conjunction with a Committee Draft, results in non-backwardly compatible changes from a previously published Committee Draft.

Under this policy, the following are examples of backwards compatible changes that would not result in assignment of a new namespace URI:

addition of new global element, attribute, complexType and simpleType definitions
addition of new operations within a WSDL portType or binding (along with the corresponding schema, message and part definitions)
addition of new elements or attributes in locations covered by a previously specified wildcard
modifications to the pattern facet of a type definition for which the value-space of the previous definition remains valid or for which the value-space of the preponderance of instance would remain valid
modifications to the cardinality of elements for which the value-space of possible instance documents conformant to the previous revision of the schema would still be valid with regards to the revised cardinality rule

Related Resources for Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging)

Normative Reference:

WS-ReliableMessaging v1.2

Title:

Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging) Version 1.2

Stage:

Committee Draft

Date:

28 February 2008

This version:

Web Services Reliable Messaging (WS-ReliableMessaging) Version 1.2

Previous version: