[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsdm][OMod] Updated Mows data model with versioning
+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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]