[jsdl-wg] my view on execution user and group

[William Lee]

Hi Ian,

My 2 cents.

> Namespaces: You have probably already had lots of discussion on 
> namespaces.  There can be problems with forwards and backwards 
> compatibility of schemas if you make the namespace the same as a 
> resolvable URL.  Things like "bug compatibility, processing 
> repeatability, existing JSDL documents, existing JSDL-aware services 
> all come into play.  My 2 cents would be that date-based versioning is 
> a good idea, and that you should not get some kind of philosophical 
> hang-up about versioning and namespaces (e.g. "But the *plan* says 
> that version 2.0 will come out in 6 months time!").  Transparent 
> schema changes which keep the same namespace are typically OK so long 
> as:
>

I'm not sure what you mean by "namespace the same as a resolvable URL". 
The namespace "http://www.ggf.org/namespaces/2005/03/jsdl-o.9.4.xsd" is 
just an URI, it has no meaning apart from a string that satisfies the 
required URI syntax. Whether or not that "http://..." string resolves 
to a network resource or not is not implied and often a cause for 
confusion.

By the way, there is a typo in the schema (version 0.9.4 on gridforge), 
the namespace attribute reads

<xsd:schema    ...     
xmlns="http://www.ggf.org/namespaces/2005/03/jsdl-o.9.4.xsd" ....>

spot "..jsdl-o.9.4.xsd", I think it should read "..jsdl-0.9.4.xsd". 
(Did you see that?)


> Numerical Operators:  It is not at all clear to me what the following 
> sentence or the example XML are supposed to indicate:
>
> "Numerical operators can be used through the general XML extensibility 
> mechanism. For example:"
>

I agree the "Numerical Operators" section is a bit out-of-place, maybe 
this can be action for the call to see whether we need to explicitly 
say in the spec. something that is NOT going to be included in this 
version.


> Normative XML Schema Types: It is not clear to me what you mean by 
> this section.  For example, what is xsd:any##other?  or "Complex"?  Is 
> that to say those are the only types you allow?  Surely not, but then 
> what does 4.2.1 mean?  I don't think 4.2.1 adds anything to the 
> specification.  I'm guessing you just mean "The following built-in 
> XSDL types are used in JSDL ...", but so what?  And "any##other" is 
> not a type, nor is "Complex".
>

Shall we just say in the spec any type that is defined with the 
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema xsd namespace has the semantic defined 
in the "XSD Schema Part 2: Data Type" recommendation.

> Final comment: it would be nice to have a single tabular summary of 
> all the "elements" in JSDL along with:
>
> cardinality (*,+,?, etc.)
> description
> parent element
> data type (string, numeric, enumeration, etc.)
>

I'll let Andreas or the list to decide on that.

Here is one I've prepared (from the schema on gridforge - version 0.9.4 
- 15th March 2005) using the Oxygen tool, which you might find useful.

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~wwhl/download/jsdl.html

William


--- William Lee @  London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London --
--- Software Coordinator ---
A: Room 380, Department of Computing, Imperial College London,  Huxley
Building, South Kensington campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
E: wwhl at doc.ic.ac.uk | william at imageunion.com
W: www.lesc.ic.ac.uk | www.imageunion.com
P: +44(0)20 7594 8251
F: +44(0)20 7581 8024

--- Projects ----------------------------
GridSAM: http://www.lesc.ic.ac.uk/gridsam
Markets: http://www.lesc.ic.ac.uk/markets
ICENI:   http://www.lesc.ic.ac.uk/iceni
-----------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/jsdl-wg/attachments/20050401/fc5f63c0/attachment.bin