Re: [nm-wg] immediate future of current schemas

[Dan Gunter <dkgunter@lbl.gov>]

Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> > This was agreed by those in the call, which from a "we have 
> > implementations
> > planned" point of view included Eric for piPEs, Jim Ferguson for Advisor,
> > and me for the UK, and European efforts of EGEE-JRA4 and DANTE. In 
> > terms of
> > groups we believe are planning to use the schemas, AMP, MonAlisa and SLAC
> > were not represented on the call.
> > So, in summary the proposal was:
> >
> > 1. stabilise the current schemas soon, with suggestions for 
> > Document-Literal
> > implementations (doc-literal allows messages to be validated against the
> > schema, and provides easier interoperability between services)
> > 2. then X months in future, we release the 'new' schemas
> >
> > ***** PLEASE SHOUT IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THIS DECISION, or you have
> > questions! *****
> >
> >
> >  
> This is good to hear but there is a general feeling (fear) within the 
> community that even after the 'new' schemas come in, they will keep 
> changing (like what has been happening with the current schemas). The 
> only way we can tackle this is by ensuring that later versions of the 
> 'new' schemas are backwards compatible. I feel that this is something 
> the group has to keep in mind right from beginning.
>
> Best regards,
> Loukik.
Although I'm sure we would all like such assurances, I'm certainly not 
about to give them. IMHO, it's the GGF standardization process that 
really guarantees some sort of stability, not the best intentions of the 
working group.

If you're really arguing that changes to the schemas (etc.) should be 
carefully tracked and discussed, then I agree. And I take the blame for 
failings in this area to this point. But there may turn out to be 
reasons to make non-backwards-compatible changes, and I don't want to 
make any "pre-nuptial" agreements to the contrary.

-Dan