[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Version identifier for XRD spec
Nat, RE your [Q1], I don't think OASIS mandates how schemas are versioned. That's up to individual TCs (I'm trusting Mary or Robin will correct me if I'm wrong.] RE your [Q2], I think that it is also up to us when we make a version change. Changing the schema would seem to be one of the conditions under which we would definitely make a version change, but it does seem like other spec changes could also trigger a version change (for example, as you mentioned, verification rules). Suggestion: since much of this seems to hinge around whether the XRD schema retains a version attribute, why don't selector see if we can decide that first. 1) Who has strong feelings one way or another about whether the XRD schema should have a version attribute? 2) If so, should the use of the version attribute be required? 3) If there is a version attribute, who has strong feeling about it being numeric (as it currently is in XRI Resolution 2.0)? Or a date value? =Drummond > -----Original Message----- > From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 6:11 AM > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; OASIS XRI TC > Cc: Gabe Wachob; Drummond Reed; Eran Hammer-Lahav; sakimura@spmd.nri.co.jp > Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Version identifier for XRD spec > > So, to sum it up, there has been several information points/resonings > available around versions: > > (1) Since it is a new spec, it shoud start from 1.0. Otherwise people > start looking for 1.0. > (2) Since there is <XRD version="2.0" xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)"> in > XRDS right now. > using 1.0 may confuse people. Perhaps we should use 3.0. > (3) However, if version attribute goes away, this is of less concern. > Version of the schema can be represented in xmlns, and it will be > a new > http based version string possibly starting from 1.0 or dates in > W3C style. > Besides, schema version and spec version can be separate. > (4) OASIS rule mandates the specs to be versioned numerically. > > I have a couple of questions at this point. > > [Q1] Is the OASIS versioning rule on the spec also applicable to the > schema contained in the spec? > [Q2] Is there a case where we want to preserve "version" attribute > separate from the schema version? > e.g., when verification rule is changed etc., should it always > require the schema version change as well? > > If the answer to [Q1] is no, then we can use date based name space in > <XRD ... > and cause > less confusion even if we adopt XRD 1.0. If the answer is "Yes", then I > would be more inclined to "3.0". > > For [Q2], I am yet to come up with a case. If any of you could think of > it, please let me know. > > =nat > > > > > Gabe Wachob wrote: > > Lets call it XRD 7! > > > > -Gabe > > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Drummond Reed > > <drummond.reed@cordance.net <mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net>> wrote: > > > > Mary McRae, our TC admin, clarified that OASIS specs must use a > > numeric > > version identifier (see thread below). > > > > So, mates, now we really do have to decide between "XRD 1.0" and > > "XRD 3.0". > > > > A suggestion: if, as we discussed on Thursday's call, the new XRD > > spec will > > no longer have a "ver" attribute on the XRD element, then the > > issue of the > > previous version attribute value being "2.0" (as specified in XRI > > Resolution > > 2.0) will go away. In that case I think it makes sense to call the > > spec "XRD > > 1.0" because as Eran pointed out, there's never been a spec from > > the TC > > called "XRD" before. > > > > OTOH, if the decision is that the ver attribute on XRD element > > should stay, > > then I think it makes sense to call the spec "XRD 3.0" because it > > really is > > the next version of XRD. We can always put a note in the > > frontmatter telling > > readers not to look for an "XRD 2.0" or "XRD 1.0" spec, but > > instead to look > > at "XRI Resolution 2.0" and "XRI 1.0" for the predecessor > > specifications. > > > > All things being equal (which they never are ;-), I favor planning > for > > future growth and extensibility, which means I favor keeping the > > versioning > > attribute, which tips me ever so slightly towards "XRD 3.0". (Which > is > > ironic because I prefer the spec name "XRD 1.0" because it's a new > > spec.) > > > > I don't think the issue is worth taking a bunch of list bandwidth > > to figure > > out, so I'd recommend that: > > > > a) Anyone else on the list with strong feelings either way, please > > post your > > thoughts by Monday. > > > > b) Eran and Nat as the editors discuss it and make a recommendation. > > > > =Drummond > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com > > <mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Mary McRae > > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:23 AM > > > To: 'Drummond Reed' > > > Subject: RE: Version identifier for XRD spec > > > > > > You found the right (and required) answer ;-) > > > > > > Mary > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net > > <mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net>] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:22 AM > > > > To: 'OASIS XRI TC'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > > <mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > > > > Subject: Version identifier for XRD spec > > > > > > > > Mary, > > > > > > > > From today's XRI TC call I had an action item to send you and > > the TC > > > > list an > > > > email asking about OASIS spec naming guidelines. Based on the > > helpful > > > > info > > > > about spec packaging you gave us two weeks ago, the TC is > > currently > > > > planning > > > > two new specs, both of which we intend to take to OASIS > > Standard level: > > > > XRI > > > > 3.0 and XRD xxx (xxx = version identifier TBD). > > > > > > > > XRI 3.0 will consist of four parts (1: Syntax, 2: Resolution, > > 3: http: > > > > and > > > > https: Bindings, and 4: info: Binding). XRD will probably be a > > single > > > > spec, > > > > though it might be two parts. > > > > > > > > Now, the question is about versioning on the XRD spec. This is > > a new > > > > spec > > > > that represents splitting off a significant portion of the > > content of > > > > the > > > > XRI Resolution 2.0 spec into a new spec that defines a generic > > metadata > > > > discovery format and protocol which the new XRI 3.0 Part 2: > > Resolution > > > > spec > > > > will then profile (as will other specs, e.g. SAML, OpenID, > > OAuth, etc. > > > > who > > > > want to use interoperable discovery). > > > > > > > > Our first question is: does an OASIS spec need to use a > > numeric version > > > > identifier? In researching this tonight, I believe the answer > > is at: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://docs.oasis- > > > > open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata.html#ver > > <http://open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata.html#ver> > > > > sion > > > > > > > > ...which states: > > > > > > > > ******************* > > > > A specification Version is represented textually by a numeric > > string > > > > composed of digits [0-9] and period (".") corresponding to any > > of the > > > > following lexical models provided below (as examples), as may be > > > > relevant to > > > > the TC's work activity and preference for major/minor version > > notation. > > > > Formally, using parenthesis to indicate optionality and "#" to > > > > represent a > > > > digit, the allowable pattern is: #(#).#(#)(.#(#)). Use of any > > other > > > > pattern > > > > for version number must be negotiated with the TC > Administration. > > > > > > > > Examples: > > > > > > > > 1.0 #.# > > > > 1.01 #.## > > > > 1.2.1 #.#.# > > > > 10.1 ##.# > > > > ******************** > > > > > > > > If so, that answers the question, and we just need to decide > what > > > > version > > > > number to give it (in short: one rationale is to call it 1.0 > > because it > > > > is a > > > > new spec; another is to call it 3.0 because it derives from two > > > > generations > > > > of XRDS before it -- but that's our issue to figure out). > > > > > > > > However, if we do have any flexibility, we want to at least > > ask you > > > > about > > > > using a year/date identifier instead of a version number. > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. (BTW, I'm thinking of setting up a call in > > early > > > > December > > > > between you and the editors of these new specs to a general > > Q&A about > > > > all > > > > things involved with the mechanics of an OASIS spec. Sound > > like a good > > > > idea?) > > > > > > > > =Drummond > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com <mailto:gwachob@wachob.com> \ > > http://blog.wachob.com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]