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