W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > August 2006

ACTION 13 Namespace URI versioning policy

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:46:57 -0700
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416501EC7C67@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Folks, 

I have reviewed the namespace URI versioning policy that is currently
stated in Section 2.2 per my action item[1]. 

First of all, let me state that I think it is a very good idea that we
have an explicit policy stated. We need to tweak it a bit. I see two
issues that would require some modification. 

1) It is not clear to me whether the third bullet is necessary given
that we are not using pattern facets in WS-Policy. 

It is also not very clear whether the second clause after the "or" is
really necessary either even if we were to retain that bullet. 

{Modifications to the pattern facet of a type definition for which the
value-space of the previous definition remains valid or for which the
value-space of the preponderance of instance would remain valid.} 
Which instances are we talking about? If we are referring to the
instances that were valid with the previous definition, I believe the
first clause already covers this intent. 

Proposal: Just remove bag "preponderence" clause? The instances that
were valid with respect to the previous definition will remain valid
anyway. 

2) It is not clear to me what "cardinality of elements" refer to in the
fourth bullet:  

{Modifications to the cardinality of elements for which the value-space
of possible instance documents conformant to the previous revision of
the schema would still be valid with regards to the revised cardinality
rule.}

Do we mean the cardinality of the value space or the occurance of the
element (with minOccurs/maxOccurs)? The former is about the cardinality
of the datatype of the element and should not be referred to the element
cardinality... 

Chris? 

If I speculate the intention of the last bullet, I believe we are not
really talking about value spaces here but perhaps trying to indicate
that the occurance of the elements in the new schema should be covering
the occurances of the instances of the same element in the old schema
(ie. 0,n -> 0, n+1) 

I will be happy to help in formulating a better wording, but I think we
need to clarify the intent of the fourth bullet first to proceed. 

Thanks, 

--umit

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/13

----------------------

Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
Architect
NetWeaver Industry Standards
SAP Labs, LLC
Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095 
SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238
--------
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, 
then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 21:18:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:40 GMT