W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > October 2004

further feedback on the XKMS schema changes

From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:52:58 +0200
To: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041012135258.GA6281@inrialpes.fr>

I talked with other colleagues who worked on SOAP. They told me
that they had actually changed their namespace several times before
reaching CR.

What the WG needs to consider is if the changes that are done are
substantive or not. Quoting the process document:

After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group MAY remove
features from the technical report that were identified as being "at
risk" and request that the Director Call for Review of a Proposed
Recommendation. If the Working Group makes other substantive changes to
the technical report, the Director MUST return it to the Working Group
for further work.

A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or
other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that
making the change would invalidate an individual's review or
implementation experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug
fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor
changes. A Working Group MUST document changes (both substantive and
minor) between steps.

A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in
either of the following situations:
The Working Group makes substantive changes to the technical report at
any time after a Last Call announcement and prior to Publication as a
Recommendation, except when the changes involve the removal of features
at risk identified in a Call for Implementations. In the case of
substantive changes, the Working Group MUST republish the technical
report as a Working Draft.

The Director requires the Working Group to address important issues
raised during a review or as the result of implementation experience. In
this case, Director MAY request that the Working Group republish the
technical report as a Working Draft, even if the Working Group has not
made substantive changes.


For the record, we didn't declare any features at risk.

In order to consider if we have made substantive changes, we can
use the following criteria as a guide:

1. Are the changes just editorial or more subtle? 

   If the changes are more than editorial and the schema actually
   changes, we may need to change the namespace.

2. Will existing implementations break if the schema's namespace
   is not changed? If an implementation doesn't follow
   the schema changes, will it still be compatible or will it stop
   being interoperable? Will there be a risk of ambiguity between
   different implementations?

3. Will the changes in the schema or spec modify past reviews or
   implementations of the XKMS spec (the LC review to be specific)? 
   Are there only changes that will remove implementation ambiguity, 
   but not significant ones?
   If there are only slight changes, we don't need to go back to LC.

4. Will the schema or spec changes be difficult to port to existing 
   If the changes remove ambiguity and make things better, we don't need
   to go back to LC. If the changes do change the way implementations
   work and are hard to port, it will probably be better to do republish
   the doc again as a WD (or whatever is tolerated. I'm not sure myself
   what to do in this case).

5. Will any features be removed?

   If yes, we'll have to go back to LC.

5. Are the changes editorial or substantive? If substantive, we need to
   go back to LC.

Following this criteria, the WG has to decide on whether to apply
changes and whether to change the schema's namespace.

My colleagues told me we can change the URL that points to the namespace
without having to publish a spec.

Hope this helps.

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 13:53:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:43 UTC