[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]