Re: [wsdm][OMod] Updated Mows data model with versioning

[Fred Carter <fred.carter@amberpoint.com>]

+1

While I'll happily encourage the development of a reasonable means of 
identifying versions, in XML-speak, two things are generally recognized 
as the same or different based on their namespace (as Bryan said).

Thus quoth MURRAY,BRYAN (HP-Seattle,ex1) (~ 06-Nov-03 12:09 PM ~)...

> Re: item 2.
> Namespaces don't imply versioning or ownership - they are used to help 
> define a universal name. Using a namespace will differentiate 2 
> interfaces from each other that use the same name for an operation, for 
> instance. A new revision of an interface needs a new namespace in order 
> to provide the new universal name for the interface. It is important to 
> allow a universal name for both the old interface and the new interface 
> because both will exist at the same time. It is not important that the 
> namespaces have a "birthdate" in them or even have a version number - 
> only that they are different.
>  
> For instance, the following are not related to each other by a 
> "birthdate" or version number:
> SOAP 1.1: http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/
> SOAP 1.2: http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope
>  
> WSDL 1.1: http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl
> WSDL 1.2: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/wsdl
>  
> Bryan
>  
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Brian Carroll [mailto:Brian.Carroll@merant.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:28 PM
>     *To:* 'Sedukhin, Igor S'; 'wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org'
>     *Subject:* RE: [wsdm][OMod] Updated Mows data model with versioning
> 
>     Igor,
>      
>     I apologize, but again have conflicting meetings and will miss the
>     the Thursday call tomorrow.
>      
>     I am substantially in agreement with your diagram. I believe it is
>     more important that the versioning concepts are expressible in the
>     MOWS model than we agree on the details of the model.  I do have
>     a few observations:
>      
>     1. It is not clear why Description need to be a separate entity
>     rather than simply an attribute of Interface and Service.  I realize
>     whether a characteristic of an entity type is expressed as an
>     attribute or an associated entity is a choice that largely depends
>     on a modelers's style. But in this diagram, treating Description as
>     an attribute would seem to simplify the diagram.  For example, we
>     would not need the Description Version entity type if we expressed
>     Descrption as an attribute of the Interface and Service entity types.
>      
>     2. I have serious concerns over the use of targetNamespace as the
>     version identifier.  targetNamespaces are associated with XML
>     documents and it is not clear there will always be a 1-1 mapping
>     between XML documents (e.g the WSDL document instances) and the
>     instances of the entity types Interface and Service.  Also, there
>     are more philosophical concerns about the use of namespace. For
>     example, namespaces were intended to express the notion of
>     "ownership" (my namespace vs your namespace), not versioning.  I
>     admit that they namespaces have been hijacked as a convenient place
>     to add version information - a common practice, but one that may not
>     be well advised.  A better approach would be to treat ownership and
>     versioning as orthogonal concepts and use a separate
>     element.attribute for each.
>      
>     Regards,
>     Brian
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:31 AM
>     *To:* Brian Carroll; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org; Andreas Dharmawan
>     *Subject:* RE: [wsdm][OMod] Updated Mows data model with versioning
> 
>         Brian,
>          
>         I don't disagree with the concepts that you were expressing, but
>         according to our earlier discussion
>         (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsdm/200310/msg00085.html)
> 
>             1. The versioning was to be expressed in a detail diagram,
>             *in addition* to the concepts diagram. Otherwise the
>             concepts diagram becomes cluttered with way too many things.
>             Also today, per core WSDL there is nothing like what was
>             expressed. We have to keep a practical, concrete point of
>             reference.
>              
>             2. The diagram had to express that a "versioned element X is
>             an element X", not the vice versa. In your diagram, for
>             example, it is expressed that a "functional interface" is an
>             "interface version" which is not excatly true, IMO.
> 
>         So, I attemted to reformulate your diagram with the above two
>         concerns. The diagram is attached. The words to follow the
>         diagram are as follows.
>          
>         "
>         The elements of the Web services acrhitecture, expressed in
>         WSDL, could be versioned. For example description, interface,
>         service and endpoint could be defined in their own namespaces
>         (not necessarily the same). The namespace could be used to
>         contain the version. Therefore, those elements,
>         conceptually become veriosned. For example a versioned service
>         is a service that is also a versioned component that has a
>         version attribute.
>          
>         Versioned components have revisions that are related to each
>         other via changes that happened between revisions. Each change
>         indicates a predcessor and sucessor (if any) revisions. Each
>         change may aggregate multiple change descriptions. Each change
>         description may be looked at as a document or a separate
>         statement of some sorts (e.g. "new interface was implemented").
>         "
> 
>         --* **Igor Sedukhin* .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
>         --* (631) 342-4325* .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
>          
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* Brian Carroll [mailto:Brian.Carroll@merant.com]
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:57 AM
>         *To:* wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Andreas Dharmawan'
>         *Subject:* RE: [wsdm][OMod] Updated Mows data model with versioning
> 
>         Igor and all,
>          
>         Here is an updated slide for the overall MOWS data model that
>         includes versioning.  Sorry for the delay, but I just obtained
>         Visio 2003 yesterday.
>          
>         The Change entity relates two Service Versions.  For clarity,
>         I've taken Zulah's comments to heart and renamed the
>         relationships between versions as "predecessor and successor".
>          
>         Igor, I will send the updated Visio file to you in a separate
>         e-mail.
>          
>         Regards,
>         Brian
> 
>         Notice: This email transmission and/or the attachments
>         accompanying it may contain confidential information belonging
>         to Merant. The information is only for the use of the intended
>         recipient. If you have received this transmission in error,
>         please notify the sender immediately by reply email, and then
>         destroy all copies of the transmission.
> 
> 
> 
>     Notice: This email transmission and/or the attachments accompanying
>     it may contain confidential information belonging to Merant. The
>     information is only for the use of the intended recipient. If you
>     have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender
>     immediately by reply email, and then destroy all copies of the
>     transmission.
> 
> 


-- 
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301