[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models?
Jeff,
This is exactly what I've been arguing, that any proposal for a 2.0 should not build in a reliance on the 1.0 schema. I've agreed with you already that in terms of communicating the schema there is no functional difference. The difference is in building in the dependency.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>
03/02/2004 02:47 PM | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
Jeff,
You're missing my point, or perhaps you're just ignoring my point. It might help to review the approach used in the schema-related aspects of the WS-Provisioning document to see what I mean. It is probably not worth repeating again, but against my better judgement I will say this: WS-Provisioning does not require that target schema be defined using XML Schema. The actual schema language used by the target is not codified into the specification, as it obviously is in the ONT proposal. There is a simple, but nonetheless profound, and apparently confusing, difference here.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>
03/02/2004 01:05 PM | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
I think I'm still being unclear. What I'm referring to is the inclusion and reference to the specific schema language in the spec. Specifically, the ONT proposal includes the notion of an "spml" attributeDefinition and objectClassDefinition. These include specific references to the SPML 1.0 dsml-based model. This is not a runtime construct, it's embedded in the schema for the proposal. The WS-Provisioning approach is to leave the schema language definition out of the specification and have it be described at runtime. Simply because in the ONT proposal the schema is delivered using a runtime request does not mean that it is the same thing at all. Surely you see the distinction here.
I'm obviously repeating myself but the point is that by embedding the SPML1.0 constructs, through inclusion of the schema and use of the types, you are now "bound" to that legacy.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>
03/02/2004 10:32 AM | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
I disagree that the two proposals look the same from the point of view of the "late-binding" idea that I brought up. Perhaps I'm not making it clear. What I'm saying is that, for example, the DSMLv2 schema is "bound" into SPML 1.0 by virtue of its being imported into the schema. I'm suggesting that the SPML 1.0 not be "bound" into SPML 2.0 but rather that the client can determine the schema language at runtime based on providing them with adequate namespace information. The key is the difference between this runtime behaviour and the inclusion of the specifics of the schema language in the specification.
That the two approaches can be made to be functionally the same is of course my argument. There is, however, a big difference between the writing of a specific schema language into the spec, and the ability to offer support for it without such a tight coupling. As for two bindings, we could certainly discuss it, but the SPML 1.0 is already defined and the schema is already available, so it can be used as is in my opinion.
None of the three reasons you propose negate this argument.
Gerry
"Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>
03/02/2004 06:53 AM | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: RE: [provision] One or many data models? |
I should clarify what my argument is here because it really has less to do with supporting two data models than it has to do with building the 1.0 schema language and data model into the 2.0 spec. I am all in favour of allowing the transport of SPML 1.0 schema and data within 2.0 messages. What I don't think is a good idea is making it part of the spec. Once it becomes part of the spec then any implementation will have to support it and it will be perpetuated into all of the future work on the SPML. I would prefer that the means to use the schema language and SPML 1.0 data within the 2.0 framework should be done as was suggested in WS-Provisioning and as I demonstrated at the F2F, i.e. by allowing clients to discover the schema language in use by namespace, a "late-binding" approach if you will. This breaks the tight coupling between the schema language and the spec, and allows 2.0 to progress without having to carry the restrictions of 1.0 with it forever more.
Gerry
"Darran Rolls" <Darran.Rolls@waveset.com>
03/01/2004 09:17 PM | To: <provision@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: [provision] One or many data models? |
Please consider this issue and ask questions/state preferences now. I propose we hold a ballot on this issue around the next committee con-call 3/16/04.
Thanks
Darran
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]