Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:12:20 -0500
Because the application types keep changing both
in time and location. One URI won't do it.
I have to know the version. We are not the
only ones changing the schema.
The police databases, for example, have interesting
problems not dissimilar to others but a little exagerated:
1. There is only one standard for the information,
NIBRS, and it is Federal.
2. Each agency gets to futz with it by say, city
and by state. Actually, the state may clean it up
on the way to the FBI but below that, it is agency
3. And just as an aside, simple validation is not good enough.
Why? Well, it is one of the few database apps where trying to put
false information into it is not only a sport, but a
survival tactic for the databasees. Lieing is not only
possible, but expected (AKA tracking, driver's who lie
about the vehicle owner, etc). The entity relationships are
So we have several versioning issues some of which
we handle in the local database using lookups (agency stuff), and
some of which we have to handle by versioning the
base schemas. Yes, it can be done with a URI but
only if the URI has version number on the end of it.
Not complex, but I think necessary. My only reason for
citing SOAP originally was that I had a sample in front
of me. The issue is really for schemas that are
quickly evolving but are all of which (major/minor
changes) are still in use.
We say we sell COTS but that is wishful thinking.
Are you saying, the URI is used but then the system
negotiates for the version?
As for names, there is that thing about having power
over that which can be named. On the other hand,
it hasn't worked on my wife yet and is slipping
quickly with my kids. Classic three body problem... :-)
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:54 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); email@example.com
Subject: RE: Namespace and Versioning
> Ok for messaging and again, for central standards shared
> across the uberSystem. Probably not so
> good for database management of applications hosted on that system.
Why isn't it an advantage to have a single URI instead of a (URI,
version-number) tuple for the envelope as well as for any "application"
which can live within a SOAP message?
> This is a juicy topic for those who like distributed chaos
> and systems
> that run best on the edge of turbulence.
Naming is always juicy, no?