W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Version attribute for WSDL

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:53:54 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1FCE@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <vbp@hp.com>, <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

William

I have to confess that i'm now confused about the difference between the WSDL namespace/version and the interface namespace/version.

So if i can recap AIUI, there are two possibilities being discussed here:

1) the namespace uniquely identifies a version of the interface
2) an additional version attribute identifies a version within a namespace

I'd say you prefer (1) where as we have been exploring (2), 

Either method could be acceptable to me, so long as an agent is clearly informed about the relationship between different versions of an interface. 

I'm unconvinced about using a naming convention to indicate relationship between versions (because of branching and other problems) and think Bijan's suggestion to use a RDF/XML vocabulary such as Dublin Core sounds very promising, as does your suggestion of an external management framework. 

One possible advantage of reusing an external vocabulary to indicate the relationship between versions is that it could be added to existing WSDL 1.1 documents.

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Vambenepe, William N
Sent: 20 February 2004 03:54
To: Prasad Yendluri; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL




This is indeed what I am asking. What problems do you see? A different
interface (no matter how different) gets a different QName. So we don't
mess up anything and start to see interactions fail that we thought
should work, or requests having a different effect from what was
expected. This is a difficult area, let's play it self. Having
established this safe foundation, we can now look at ways to offer
additional features when the interfaces are indeed versions of one
another, by having a convention on how to build a the namespace URI of a
new interface based on the namespace URI of the older version. If people
want to take advantage of this convention, great. If they don't then
they don't have to worry about it and their code won't suddenly break
because they forgot to check the "version" and follow whatever rules we
define about minor/major versions.

What I don't like about the approach that uses a new "version" attribute
is that it puts additional constraints and a heavy burden on people who
don't care about versioning. The approach I propose allows people who
don't care about expressing versioning to ignore it and be safe.

William
Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 08:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC