My preference would be to make use of the built
in forward compatibility to use the existing tech notes with the new spec by
just following the versioning patterns used in naming (1_0 change to 2_0 tModels
etc). Then to re-visit broadening or enhancing publish / find / bind support for
new 2.0 features (e.g. events, resources etc) for a “v2” of the
tech notes.
Regards,
Andre
From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 07 July 2005 21:39
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-pfb] Reference
to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech notes in 2.0 spec draft?
These have been held up pending an update to the OASIS
artifact naming guidelines as these impact URNs. Hopefully we will be able to
move forward in the next month or so, but it does raise an interesting question
about when the work to update these to v2 should start. Hopefully we can
publicize the v1 versions while v2 is going through the standardization
process. It would be nice to release the v2 versions quite close to the
approval of v2 as a standard.
Rich
"Andre
Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>
07/07/05 12:18 PM
|
To
|
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
|
<wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
|
[wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract
PFB Model tech notes in 2.0 spec draft?
|
|
Since we did not exactly over achieve
publicising the registry tech notes via the OASIS Web pages, should we add
references to the tech notes and state that it’s backwards compatible (or
the tech notes are forward compatible if one prefers)? What do you think?
Regards,
Andre
From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 07 July 2005 21:39
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-pfb] Reference
to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract PFB Model tech notes in 2.0 spec draft?
These have been held up pending an update to the OASIS
artifact naming guidelines as these impact URNs. Hopefully we will be able to
move forward in the next month or so, but it does raise an interesting question
about when the work to update these to v2 should start. Hopefully we can
publicize the v1 versions while v2 is going through the standardization
process. It would be nice to release the v2 versions quite close to the
approval of v2 as a standard.
Rich
"Andre
Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>
07/07/05 12:18 PM
|
To
|
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
|
<wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
|
[wsrp-pfb] Reference to UDDI, ebXML, Abstract
PFB Model tech notes in 2.0 spec draft?
|
|
Since we did not exactly over achieve
publicising the registry tech notes via the OASIS Web pages, should we add
references to the tech notes and state that it’s backwards compatible (or
the tech notes are forward compatible if one prefers)? What do you think?
Regards,
Andre