W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2005

Re: NEW ISSUE: use RDDL instead of XML Schema at the namespace URI?

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:05:01 -0700
Message-ID: <425AE67D.1060706@oracle.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Anish:
>>Can you pl. elaborate what you mean by 'latest schema' and 'dated
>>to the schema'? Do you mean something similar to what the spec
>>have (latest version/this version/previous version) OR do you mean
>>the links will point only to various schemas (arising out of errata
>>fixes) that have the same namespaces?
> Yes, though I don't think a "this version" RDDL link is very useful.  I
> was thinking "latest version", "2006-01-01 version", "2005-10-01
> version", "2005-07-01 version", etc.
>>For example, the 1st WD has the namespace
>>http://www.w3.org/2005/02/addressing and the LC WD has a different
>>namespace http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing. In this proposal, if I
>>deref http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing would I get a pointer to
>>schema for the 1st WD?
> This proposal doesn't cover what other links we might put in the RDDL,
> though I think it should at least point to the spec(s) defining the
> namespace, the schema(s) for the namespace.  If we want to put in links
> to related specs that's fine, but they need to be given appropriate
> roles (a link to the "02" namespace asserting it's a schema for the "03"
> namespace would be a lie.)

Ok, makes sense.
In that case, this (multiple schemas) would really be applicable to REC 
docs, as with WD/LC/CR/PR docs if there is change then we just use a new 
dated namespace. Right?

Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 21:05:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC