Re: [ubl] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 2 November 2005

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Please forgive my possible niaivety: I think these two decisions are
contradictory (I'll be pleasantly surprised if someone proves me wrong).

I thought with the versioning team we had proved that you cannot
publish deltas for highly nested schemas like UBL without using
substitution groups.

All the best

Steve


The minutes read:

Question 3: What, specifically, determines whether a new version
of the schema is actually a 'minor' or 'major' release? (If the
schema only includes the deltas, and utilizes xsd:derivation
concepts, the answer should be simpler than if the versioning is
strictly model-based.)

   Discussion: We have already adopted the definitions given by
   Eduardo Gutentag in his message of 18 October 2005, but we note
   that his definition of backward compatibility transposes X and
   Y:

      c) backwards compatibility -- a schema X is said to be
      backwards compatible with a schema Y if documents that
      validate against schema X also validate against schema Y,
      and schema X follows (in time, or in version) schema Y.

      In other words, if all documents that validate against
      MySchema v1.0 also validate against MySchema v1.1, then
      MySchema v1.1 is said to be backwards compatible; but there
      is no expectation that any document that validates against
      MySchema v1.1 must also by necessity validate against
      MySchema v1.0

   The example shows that the definition should read "and schema Y
   follows (in time, or in version) schema X."

Question 4: Is (are?) Substitution Groups still on the table?

   AGREED: We will not use substitution groups for minor
   versioning.