Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files

Sanjay,
I think it is possible that implementers
would use an interim version, depending on quickly the specs progress to
final completion.  For example, I would expect Tuscany to start implementing
OASIS changes to the specs some time within the next few months, including
changing to the OASIS namespace(s).

Other reasons why it is useful to have
the dual namespaces available in 1.1 are:
   - it clearly establishes
the principle of supporting this approach
   - it allows the TCs to
make and implement decisions on what namespaces they will use for their
specifications
   - it allows users to write
SCDL with either a single namespace or with dual namespaces, and provide
feedback on their preference for these two approaches.
   - it allows the TCs and
the Liaison Committee to gauge user reactions to this approach and make
any desired adjustments before the 1.1 specs are final. 

    Simon

Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer

Member of the IBM Academy of Technology

Tel. +44-1962-815156  Fax +44-1962-818999

"Patil, Sanjay"
<> 

25/04/2008 16:03

To

Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS
Liaison" <>

cc

Subject

RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for
bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL
files)

 
Simon,
 
Do you envision implementers of
the SCA specifications using the interim versions of the different SCA
1.1 specifications produced by the related OASIS TCs? 
 
I can see some value in experimenting
with the idea of 'both namespaces' during the 1.1 timeframe, but I wonder
whether this idea has any practical benefit as such (until after the 1.1
specs go final).
 
-- Sanjay

From: Simon Nash [mailto:]

Sent: Friday, Apr 25, 2008 7:50 AM

To: OASIS Liaison

Subject: RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and other extension
points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)

I'm puzzled by the first sentence implying agreement to the proposal from
the bindings TC, followed by a proposal that is not what the bindings TC
asked for.

Specifically, the bindings TC was proposing that the "both" approach
should be used for the 1.1 specs.  Binding schemas would be defined
in one or more binding-related namespaces, and the same definitions would
also be available in the main SCA namespace.  This approach would
be in place for 1.1, not post-1.1.

I would like to introduce this approach now, so that TCs who see value
in having a different namespace can get their namespace definitions in
place before 1.1.

    Simon 

Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer

Member of the IBM Academy of Technology

Tel. +44-1962-815156  Fax +44-1962-818999

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB

15/04/2008 10:37

To

"OASIS Liaison"
<> 

cc

Subject

RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for
bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL
files)

Folks, 

+1 

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

"Michael Rowley"
<> 

14/04/2008 17:12

To

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
"OASIS Liaison" <>

cc

"Anish Karmarkar" <>

Subject

RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for
bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL
files)

 

I believe that we should respond to the bindings TC by saying that the
liason committee agrees with the “both” approach that was suggested.
 I’ll repeat that suggestion here: 

- Perhaps it is possible to define bindings/implementations/etc in their

own namespace, but then also create a overarching namespace that brings

together "blessed" versions of each candidate technology.  XML
Schema

may not have good ways of doing this (I don't know), but in the

worst-case, the element definitions could be repeated in a different

namespace.

We also believe that we should start the process with a “blessed” namespace
for SCA version 1.1.  However, as soon as any TC needs to make an
incompatible change to an extensibility element (e.g. binding.xxx) after
the completion of SCA 1.1, a new namespace should be created that will
be used specifically for that extensibility point.

 

At some later time, SCA as a whole will create a new coarse-grained namespace
(e.g. for SCA 1.2) that will include specific versions of the finer-grained
namespaces that have been created since the 1.1.

 

These means that, in the short run, everything should be in the one SCA
namespace that has been defined by the assembly TC.

 

Michael

  

From: Mike Edwards [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:27 AM

To: OASIS Liaison

Cc: Anish Karmarkar

Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and other extension
points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)

 

Folks, 

I'm happy with either: 

a) Everything in one "SCA" namespace

or 

b) Each binding in its own namespace, with "blessed" versions
in the SCA namespace also 

I believe that b) is in effect the approach suggested for new, initially
non standardized bindings 

(eg binding.json from the Tuscany project), which are subsequently standardized.

The mechanics of b) do need investigation, but I think that at worst a
complete repeat of the 

definitions in the two namespaces is the answer.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

"Michael Rowley"
<> 

25/03/2008 21:35

To

"Anish Karmarkar"
<>, <>

cc

  

Subject

[opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings
and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL
files)

  

 

 

Good point Anish.  I suspect that one of us was indeed supposed to
bring

this up (I don't recall who, if anyone, was identified).  So, how
about

me.

Dear Liason Committee,

The Bindings TC would like guidance on the namespace to use for the

various <binding.xxx> elements that it is in charge of defining.

Specifically, the question is whether the bindings should always use the

same namespace as SCA assembly, or whether they should each use

different namespaces.

The Bindings TC debated this question for a while at its F2F, but agreed

that the approach taken should follow a generally agreed approach that

would also apply to all of the extensibility points in SCA assembly

(such as implementation elements <implementation.xxx> and interface

elements <interface.xxx>).  As such, we think this is an appropriate

issue for the Liason group to tackle.

Argument Kickstart:

At the F2F, we discussed the pros and cons of a few approaches.

Each binding gets its own namespace:

- This approach allows each binding definition to evolve independently

from other binding definitions and independent of SCA as a whole.

Everything in one "SCA" namespace:

- This approach gives the user of SCA a set of technologies that are

known to work together.  If each binding/implementation/etc evolved

independently, then the user would be hard pressed to figure out which

collection of them actually worked together.

- Having one namespace means that there are fewer prefixes to define at

the top of the various SCDL files (this seemed to carry less weight than

the previous point).

Both:

- Perhaps it is possible to define bindings/implementations/etc in their

own namespace, but then also create a overarching namespace that brings

together "blessed" versions of each candidate technology.  XML
Schema

may not have good ways of doing this (I don't know), but in the

worst-case, the element definitions could be repeated in a different

namespace.

No decision was made, but it was my impression that the last of these

approaches carried the greatest appeal, if the details could be worked

out.

Michael