[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FpML-AWG More on Canonical Scheme URIs
- To: awg@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: FpML-AWG More on Canonical Scheme URIs
- From: "Daniel Dui" <daniel.dui@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 15:53:04 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=eeLp3ZkGcPOPVEYpRPYxG/X3senB7qwpjvLG+EnfnP4=; b=Kqo0dAalUpXVKPubd5NUc/sUPMJGln6CeK2ifbRsX+jZXFPkD4CBRpzF9SjOsWIQp2VAUpDzXpbQBmxWZAQEC06ZlgIXlCy/NafW7TqsU9dniPF3a6/1T+qpEDPP36tEo/Y1vO3GLi1SWzGUnXLNhTVWkHSVG4akmQZ0W84w9I8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=kJYdPauOF335qa8am3gq682lf3lUCM2XBOcxx1pUI1S9/wnb653R0TyDOlM7rxgxV5vEp8QbNWUHxlQnjGbm/l7MHSNYjGnugjVYn97tYU7rHm8Az2YknZdUSZNCUYAJX4cNvjVPamjDh8EfRWKsXc594pYqbm62O6J9TyQjzTc=
- Reply-to: awg@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: awg@xxxxxxxx
I had some comments about the usage of versioned/canonical URIs. These
are my thoughts:
I think that the guiding principle should be that the sender should
provide information that is as detailed as possible, but that it's
preferable to provide less detailed but correct information, rather
than more detailed but perhaps incorrect information.
Implication for the sender of the message:
An FpML message should contain a versioned scheme URI when the sender
is certain of version of the code list to which the code belongs. In
practice this means that the sender performs scheme validation before
sending a message.
An FpML message should contain a non- versioned scheme URI when…
a) The sender can't be certain of the version of the code list to
which the code belongs. This is usually the case of the sender does
not perform scheme validation before sending a message.
b) The sender is deliberately using codes that don't belong to any
version of the currently standardised code lists.
Implications for the receiver of the message:
The receiver of a message that contains a versioned URI should
preferably interpret the code against the appropriate version of the
code list. Alternatively it may interpret the code against the most
recent version of the code list that it is aware of.
The receiver of a message that contains a non-versioned URI should
interpret the code against the most recent version of the code list
that it is aware of.
I am not sure I agree with this paragraph in the final "In Summary"
section of the document.
"There are a small number of schemes for which a canonical URI would
appear to be a better choice generally (e.g. business centers, etc.)
than the current versioned one."
Why would it be preferable to use a non-versioned URI for business centers?
-daniel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line
In the body include the line: unsubscribe awg youremail@address
To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_awgmail/threads.html