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: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:09:38 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5072802A0@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Yes, I'm mostly concerned about the namespace doc accompanying the final
Rec.  I think it's probably wise to try this out with some pre-Rec
namespaces too, starting with our next set of pubs (excluding this
week's).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 2:05 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: use RDDL instead of XML Schema at the
> namespace URI?
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Anish:
> >
> >>Can you pl. elaborate what you mean by 'latest schema' and 'dated
> >>links
> >>to the schema'? Do you mean something similar to what the spec
> >>documents
> >>have (latest version/this version/previous version) OR do you mean
> >>that
> >>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
> >>the
> >>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?
> 
> -Anish
> --
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 21:09:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT