RE: [xml-dev] schema versioning and RDDL

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 UTC