[Smwg] Re: Simple Schedule RID CSSM-058

[Colin.Haddow at esa.int]

Fine by me John.

Cheers for now,

Colin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Colin R. Haddow,
HSO-GI, European Space Agency,
European Space Operations Centre,
Robert-Bosch-Str 5,
64293 Darmstadt,
Germany.

Phone; +49 6151 90 2896
Fax;      +49 6151 90 3010
E-Mail;  colin.haddow at esa.int
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





From:       John Pietras <john.pietras at gst.com>
To:         "Colin.Haddow at esa.int" <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>,
Cc:         "CCSDS SMWG ML (smwg at mailman.ccsds.org)" <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:       14/04/2015 20:38
Subject:    Simple Schedule RID CSSM-058



Colin,
Thanks for forwarding the 3 schema-related RIDs.

RID CSSM-047 asked that the parameters in the schemas follow the same order
as those in the UML diagrams and tables, and this I had actually already done
in the process of making the other changes to the schemas.

RIDCSSM-059 asked that real time values be used in the example XML document,
and this I have just completed.

Which leaves RID CSSM-058, which states “It is proposed to use a version
specification of the XML schema, such that any validating parser can check if
the version of the XML instance is compliant with the version of the schema.
It would make it easier if evolving schema versions were to occur to check
the validity of an XML instance against a specific schema (version)”,
for which you provided the Disposition “Accepted: pending further discussion
with schemaMaster (JVP)”.

My reaction is that by using versioned name spaces, we are satisfying the
RID. Since the version number of the namespace appears in both the schema
itself and any instance document that is to be validated against that schema,
any attempt to validate an instance document against a different version
(i.e., a different version of the name space) will result in a validation
failure.

Unless you are any other member of the CSSMWG can think of a form of
versioning that would be useful but requires some other mechanism (e.g., a
dedicated ‘schemaVersion’ parameter), I propose that what we now have is
sufficient.

Best regards,
John

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.