[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Version identifier for XRD spec
Just a recommendation: I don't think it would be a mistake to keep one eye on details of the OASIS Naming Guidelines as the TC deliberates about such things as construction of a spec title, use of version/revision identifiers, namespace URI considerations, (required) use of both instance (version-specific) and generic (version-agnostic) URIs for schemas as well as prose specs, etc. And also, on the TC Process document. Examples: http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingV08.html#NamespaceDesign (includes 'change policies for XML namespaces') http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata04.html#title http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata04.html#version http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata04.html#specURIs http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata04.html#declaredNamespace (namespace document, if you use HTTP scheme NS URI) http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata04.html#latestVersionURIs-schemas "Latest Version" URIs for Schemas, WSDLs, RDDLs, and Other Specification Components TC Prosess 2.18 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#specQuality A specification may be composed of any number of files of different types, though any such multi-part specification must have a single specification name and version number. Irrespective of the number and status of the constituent parts, the specification as a whole must be approved by a single TC ballot. Any change made to a specification requires a new version or revision number... [NB Mary is out of the office for this week] -rcc Robin Cover OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink Email: robin@oasis-open.org Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html Tel: +1 972-296-1783 On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Gabe Wachob wrote: > I'd be happy with calling it XRD 1.0 if we use a dated namespace so people > don't have *any* confusion about the fact that this is the "most current" > spec relative to XRI... > > Its also a sort of emerging best practice for namespaces from the W3C, > afaict. > > And of course, I'm happy with an HTTP namespace ;) > > I'm happy with dropping version - that was there mostly to allow backwards > compatibility - the idea being that a future interpreter could pick up an > older XML document and understand what it was looking at. This would leave us > as spec writers free to add new elements in a "backwards compatible" manner, > while allowing the documen to give hints to "up to date" implementations what > level the spec was at. The idea was that you would be able to rev the schema > much slower than the spec interpreting it. > > -Gabe > > On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > >> My vote is to: >> >> Name the spec XRD 1.0 >> Drop the ?version? attribute >> Drop the proposal to have multiple ?profiles? (i.e. XRDS-Simple) >> Use an HTTP namespace under the OASIS domain with version 1.0. If people >> find this confusing, I would be ok with a dated namespace. As a last >> resort, I would support using a version 3.0 namespace with an explanation >> why the spec itself is version 1.0. >> >> Here is why: >> >> >> I think the real question here is what to do with the ?version? attribute. >> In many ways, it is very similar to the ?profile? attribute proposed >> earlier to support the XRDS-Simple use case. I am ?1 on both and here is >> why. My understanding of the ?version? attribute is that it refers only to >> the resolver workflow, not to the schema which is independently versioned >> via an XML namespace. >> >> I cannot think of use cases where the schema does not change at all, but >> the meaning of the document does. The most likely scenario to happen is >> adding elements via XML namespace import, and in that case, the resolver >> will need to take those new additions into account (as they may change the >> meaning of the document). I believe that the schema itself is more than >> just a format but also tightly linked to its meaning. If we want to change >> the meaning but not the schema, we should still change the XML namespace. >> Either way, existing parsers will need to change so why does it matter what >> breaks them (different version of different namespace). >> >> In addition, I have changed my views on the ?profile? attribute. I think at >> this point the only element which might be considered ?advance? is <Ref> >> and it is an important requirement for any delegation of metadata. The only >> other issue raised by developers was the ?priority? attribute but again, it >> is too important to remove. >> >> If we remove these two attributes, we are left with a single unified schema >> which will get a new namespace. Since this new namespace will be an HTTP >> URI, I do not think it matters if it is version 1.0 or dated. It will be >> sufficiently different form the XRI namespace (which more people didn?t >> understand) and from the version attribute value. Because of that I lean >> more towards a version 1.0 in the namespace than a date, but will take a >> date over version 3.0. >> >> The spec itself should be XRD 1.0 either way, not matter what namespace we >> end up using (and assuming we are dropping the ?version? attribute). It is >> better to version it 1.0 and put a comment why the namespace has 3.0 in it, >> than make everything 3.0... >> >> EHL >> >> >> On 11/23/08 11:18 PM, "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net> wrote: >> >> 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]