This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Interaction and Versioning"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
See [[Interaction_Versioning]] and [[Interaction_Conformance_and_Versioning_-_Implementation_Issues]] for earlier discussions on this topic. | See [[Interaction_Versioning]] and [[Interaction_Conformance_and_Versioning_-_Implementation_Issues]] for earlier discussions on this topic. | ||
| − | Effectively NICTIZ poses the question "can new artefacts (compliant | + | * Effectively NICTIZ poses the question "can new artefacts (compliant with the new/modified model) be parsed by the current schema"? If not, then we need a new interaction version. If not, vendors won't be able to parse the new artefact. Note that NICTIZ publishes a set of normative schema + schematron. Not publishing such a schemaset causes major implementation headaches. |
| − | with the new/modified model) be parsed by the current schema"? If not, | ||
| − | then we need a new interaction version. | ||
Revision as of 23:58, 13 January 2008
This page documents an Open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
How is versioning, and 'backwards compatibility' related to interaction version (in its name), profileId, etc. See Interaction_Versioning and Interaction_Conformance_and_Versioning_-_Implementation_Issues for earlier discussions on this topic.
- Effectively NICTIZ poses the question "can new artefacts (compliant with the new/modified model) be parsed by the current schema"? If not, then we need a new interaction version. If not, vendors won't be able to parse the new artefact. Note that NICTIZ publishes a set of normative schema + schematron. Not publishing such a schemaset causes major implementation headaches.
