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

RE: [xml-dev] schema versioning and RDDL

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:17:04 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF2257@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
i was crestfallen at Cannes when Tom's version attribute proposal was rejected. After talking to you and Tom afterwards i certainly would support a version string, with or without semantics, so long as it was for describing a minor version within a namespace.
 
i'm not convinced this RDDL approach is good enough (there is no discussion of compatibility) but thought it might interest the group and rekindle some discussion (which it did :-)
 
So on a related note, I attended XML Europe and saw Henry present his schema validate, fixup and validate pipeline[1]. IMO this legitimised passive versioning within a namespace, so long as it is combined with a clear understanding of the compatibility of changes. i'm happy to give a quick representation of Henry's findings to the WG (writing or at the F2F).
 
Paul
 
[1]
paper:
http://idealliance.org/papers/dx_xmle04/papers/03-04-04/03-04-04.html

slides:
http://www.markuptechnology.com/XMLEu2004/

 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
	Sent: Mon 17/05/2004 19:48 
	To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [xml-dev] schema versioning and RDDL
	
	

	I thought you didn't like using an string for identifying a (minor) version?
	
	I'd still love to see having a version attribute on the wsdl definitions in scope for wsdl 2.0, but I haven't seen any folks change their mind on that issue.
	
	Cheers,
	Dave
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
	> Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
	> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:25 AM
	> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
	> Subject: [xml-dev] schema versioning and RDDL
	>
	>
	>
	> forwarded on from XML-DEV mailing list: an interesting idea for
	> describing versions of a namespace in an external RDDL document.
	>
	> Paul
	>
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Nikita Ogievetsky [mailto:nogievet@cogx.com]
	> Sent: 02 May 2004 23:51
	> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
	> Subject: [xml-dev] schema versioning and RDDL
	>
	>
	> Dear All,
	>
	> I started to look at the applications of using namespace URI
	> for schema
	> versioning [1], [2] and RDDL [3]; and was wondering if
	> anybody can give
	> any thoughts (or had already given) to the pros and cons of
	> this approach.
	>
	> The idea is to use "#" separator for namespace versioning
	> (not "/" as proposed in the referenced resources), i.g:
	>
	> <myObj xmlns="http://www.cogx.com/myObject#v1.0">
	>   <myProp1 value="x">
	> </myObj>
	> <myObj xmlns="http://www.cogx.com/myObject#v1.2">
	>   <myProp1 value="x">
	>   <myProp2 href="http://www. cogx.com">
	> </myObj>
	>
	> Than an RDDL document at the http://www.cogx.com/myObject location can
	> contain the following RDDL resource elements
	> with ids "v1.0" and "v1.2" correspondingly:
	>
	> <xhtml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
	>       xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
	>       xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/">
	>  <head>
	>  <title>RDDL Resources for myObject </title>
	>  </head>
	>  <body>
	>   <h1>RDDL Resources for myObject</h1>
	>   <p>
	>   Here we are describing myObject,
	>   How it came about,
	>   Its relationships to other objects,
	>   its history, details,
	>   and other related information
	>   that can be useful for modelers and developers.
	>   </p>
	>   ...
	>   <rddl:resource
	>    id="v1.0"
	>    xlink:href="http://www.cogx.com/myobject/myobject20040401.xsd"
	>    xlink:title="Version 1.0 of myObject schema, approved on
	> April 1, 2004"
	>    xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema"
	>    xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"
	>   >
	>   <rddl:resource
	>    id="v1.2"
	>    xlink:href="http://www.cogx.com/myobject/myobject20040421.xsd"
	>    xlink:title="Version 1.2 of myObject schema, approved on
	> April 21, 2004"
	>    xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema"
	>    xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"
	>   >
	>   ...
	>  </body>
	> </xhtml>
	>
	> This way information about all versions of myObject can be
	> collocated in one
	> RDDL document.
	>
	> Does it make sense?
	> --Nikita
	>
	> [1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200103/msg00995.html

	> [2] http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipnamsp.html

	> [3] http://www.rddl.org

	>
	>
	

Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 15:17:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT