Michel Drescher, FLE, Ltd. Standardised Namespaces for XML in GGF (draft 09) N/A

Similar documents
Steven Newhouse, Microsoft Mario Antonioletti, EPCC August 1, 2011

Multi-Server Based Namespace Data Management of Resource Namespace Service

Open Cloud Computing Interface Service Level Agreements

GWD-R (draft-ogf-jsdl-spmd-008) Andreas Savva, Fujitsu

Open Cloud Computing Interface Platform

Category: Standards Track September 2003

Updates: 2710 September 2003 Category: Standards Track. Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol

Network Working Group Internet-Draft January 25, 2006 Expires: July 29, Feed Rank draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-05.txt. Status of this Memo

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Category: Best Current Practice January 2004

OCCI Compute Resource Templates Profile

Request for Comments: 3934 Updates: 2418 October 2004 BCP: 94 Category: Best Current Practice

OASIS - Artifact naming guidelines

Network Working Group. Category: Informational January Unused Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option Codes

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track <draft-aboba-radius-iana-03.txt> 30 March 2003 Updates: RFC IANA Considerations for RADIUS

Request for Comments: 4633 Category: Experimental August 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track February SIEVE Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-00.

XDI Requirements and Use Cases

Request for Comments: 2711 Category: Standards Track BBN October 1999

Isode Limited March 2008

Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol

Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers

SMOA Computing HPC Basic Profile adoption Experience Report

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-03.

J. Basney, NCSA Category: Experimental October 10, MyProxy Protocol

Category: Standards Track September MIB Textual Conventions for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

Network Working Group. November Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)

Request for Comments: 2493 Category: Standards Track January 1999

Example set of DFDL 1.0 properties

Example set of DFDL 1.0 properties

Open Cloud Computing Interface Text Rendering

Category: Standards Track December 2003

Editor: Mark Morgan, University of Virginia Category: Recommendation 31 October

Network Working Group Internet-Draft October 27, 2007 Intended status: Experimental Expires: April 29, 2008

Metadata for SAML 1.0 Web Browser Profiles

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track September 2003

Updates: 2535 November 2003 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: 4715 Category: Informational NTT November 2006

Expires in six months 24 October 2004 Obsoletes: RFC , , 3377, 3771

Configuration Description, Deployment and Lifecycle Management Working Group (CDDLM-WG) Final Report

Deployment Profile Template Version 1.0 for WS-Reliability 1.1

Category: Standards Track June Requesting Attributes by Object Class in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Status of This Memo

OpenOffice Specification Sample

Position Paper: Facets for Content Components

Expires: February 25, 2004 August 27, Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH) draft-wasserman-netconf-over-ssh-00.

IETF TRUST. Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents. Approved November 6, Effective Date: November 10, 2008

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 2514 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems K. Tesink Bellcore Editors February 1999

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4913 Category: Experimental July 2007

Abstract Code-Signing Profile of the OASIS Digital Signature Services

IETF TRUST. Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents. February 12, Effective Date: February 15, 2009

Network Working Group. Obsoletes: draft-ietf-dhc-new-opt-msg-00.txt June 2000 Expires December 2000

HPCP-WG, OGSA-BES-WG March 20, Smoa Computing HPC Basic Profile Adoption Experience Report

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3634 Category: Standards Track Comcast Cable J. Bevilacqua N. Davoust YAS Corporation December 2003

Chin Guok, ESnet. Network Service Interface Signaling and Path Finding

{Describe the status and stability of the specification here.}

XACML Profile for Requests for Multiple Resources

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3397 Category: Standards Track Apple Computer, Inc. November 2002

Network Working Group. February 2005

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3937 Category: Informational October 2004

Metadata for SAML 1.0 Web Browser Profiles

E. Lewis ARIN September 23, KEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-09. Status of this Memo

Category: Informational November 2000

Intended status: Standards Track August 15, 2008 Expires: February 16, 2009

Obsoletes: 2070, 1980, 1942, 1867, 1866 Category: Informational June 2000

Category: Best Current Practice February Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3085 Category: Informational IPTC D. Rivers-Moore Rivcom March 2001

Request for Comments: 4315 December 2005 Obsoletes: 2359 Category: Standards Track. Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS extension

SAML V2.0 Profile for Token Correlation

Network Working Group. November 1999

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track August Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

Network Working Group. Category: Informational October 2005

Feb :33 draft-glenn-id-sensor-alert-mib-01.txt Page 1

Test Assertions for the SCA Web Service Binding Version 1.1 Specification

draft-aoun-mgcp-nat-package-02.txt

OASIS Specification Document Template Usage

Jabber, Inc. August 20, 2004

TestCases for the SCA Assembly Model Version 1.1

Network Working Group Request for Comments: IBM L. Masinter AT&T December 1999

Network Working Group Request for Comments: August Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4

Category: Standards Track August POP URL Scheme. Status of this Memo

Network Working Group. Category: Informational May OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization

Request for Comments: 5208 Category: Informational May 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems May 2007

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3508 Category: Informational April H.323 Uniform Resource Locator (URL) Scheme Registration

Request for Comments: 5010 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. September 2007

Request for Comments: 3401 Updates: 2276 October 2002 Obsoletes: 2915, 2168 Category: Informational

Open Cloud Computing Interface - HTTP Protocol

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4143 Category: Standards Track Brandenburg November 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Informational January 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Informational April A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

Request for Comments: 4759 Category: Standards Track Neustar Inc. L. Conroy Roke Manor Research November 2006

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4147 Category: Informational August Proposed Changes to the Format of the IANA IPv6 Registry

September The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry. Status of This Memo

Request for Comments: 5115 Category: Standards Track UCL January Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) Attribute for Resource Priority

Request for Comments: 5179 Category: Standards Track May 2008

SSTC Response to Security Analysis of the SAML Single Sign-on Browser/Artifact Profile

Category: Standards Track June 2006

Request for Comments: 4142 Category: Standards Track Nine by Nine November 2005

Proposal for SAML Attribute Changes

Transcription:

Standardised Namespaces for XML in GGF (draft 09) N/A Michel Drescher, FLE, Ltd. Ali Anjomshoaa, EPCC 7 November 2005 Standardised Namespaces for XML infosets in GGF Status of This Memo This memo provides information to the Grid community on how to define identifying names uniquely and uniform in the GGF domain. It does not define any standards or technical recommendations. Distribution is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright Global Grid Forum (2005). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document defines a rule set to generate namespaces for XML documents and infosets. Contents Abstract... 1 1. Introduction... 2 1.1 Notational conventions... 2 2. Namespace Generation Rules... 2 2.1 Namespace... 2 2.2 common-part... 2 2.3 scheme... 3 2.4 http... 3 2.5 customs... 3 2.6 domain... 3 2.7 specific-part... 3 2.8 project... 4 2.9 version... 4 2.10 version-year... 5 2.11 version-month... 5 2.12 part... 5 2.13 extension... 6 3. Security Considerations... 6 Author Information... 6 Acknowledgements... 6 Intellectual Property Statement... 7 Full Copyright Notice... 7 References... 7 Appendix A. Complete rule set... 8 Appendix B. Outlook on further actions... 8 Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 1

1. Introduction The main purpose of GGF work is to produce documents. Many of these documents, if not the majority, are specifications to standardise Grid Computing. Every Working Group and Research Group thus faces the problem to structure the namespace URI for their particular area of interest. A non-exhaustive survey of current GGF research groups showed that indeed the defined namespaces vary greatly. Indeed, recurring patterns of identification within a larger organisational domain greatly improve communication and recognition both internal and external to an organisation. This very popular pattern has many names, of which the most commonly known name is Corporate Identity in the commercial world. This document defines a small part of a greater Grid Community Identity by standardising the way in which GGF Working Groups and, possibly, Research Groups, organise their associated namespaces. 1.1 Notational conventions The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Namespace Generation Rules This section presents a set of rules to generate namespaces. The outcome of every rules application is a namespace suitable for XML schema documents. The rules presented in this section closely follow the augmented BNF framework given in [RFC2616]. The rule element named token MUST be interpreted as given in [RFC2616] chapter 2.2. 2.1 Namespace A namespace uniquely identifies a specification within the GGF domain. To demonstrate that the specification relates to GGF, its namespace shall have a common part related to GGF, and a specification related part: 2.2 common-part namespace = common-part [specific-part ] The common part that every namespace contains is further refined to the following: common-part = scheme customs domain Example: A common part for namespace identifiers http://schemas.ggf.org Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 2

2.3 scheme The scheme is an additional element for further extension For the purpose of this document, its semantics are just a string. Other documents inherited from this document may impose additional semantics to extended tokens to the scheme rule. scheme = ( http extension ) :// 2.3.1 http The scheme literal value http MUST be used when generating namespaces for XML schema documents and infosets associated to specifications published by GGF Working Groups and Research Groups. 2.4 customs The customs part defines the general purpose of the containing namespace. It is used to partition the semantics of the GGF domain namespace. customs = schemas extension Other documents extending the rule set given here MAY introduce further extension and impose other semantics to those tokens. 2.4.1 schemas The customs literal value schemas defines that the containing namespace is used to define a namespace for a specification s associated XML schema. All GGF specifications that publish XML schema documents MUST use this literal value when defining the namespace. 2.5 domain The domain part of the common-part element of a namespace identifier associates the namespace with a higher level community. domain =.ggf.org extension 2.5.1 ggf.org The domain literal value ggf.org MUST be used when generating namespaces for XML schema documents and infosets associated to specifications published by GGF Working Groups and Research Groups. 2.6 specific-part The specific-part of a namespace defines the project specific properties. The minimum information provided MUST include the project acronym and a version. If the structure of the project permits, arbitrarily detailed information MAY be added to the namespace: specific-part = project version [ project part ] Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 3

If additional information is needed, the main namespace MUST be constructed using specific-part = project version project and all subordinate namespaces MUST be constructed using specific-part = project version part Example: Specific parts defined by the JSDL working group /jsdl/2005/06/jsdl /jsdl/2005/06/jsdl-posix For further information see section 2.11. 2.7 project To satisfy the project rule, each GGF project selects an acronym describing that project. The acronyms MUST NOT contain any hints on the nature of the project group; they neither MUST NOT incorporate fractions of or whole acronyms of other projects. project = / <project acronym> Example: A selection of correct and wrong project acronyms /rss /graap /jsdl /jsdl-wg /bes /ogsa-bes (correct) (wrong!) (correct) (wrong!) 2.8 version To satisfy the version rule a project MUST give the year and month of publication of the XML schema document. It is irrelevant whether the published specification is a draft or a final document. version = / version-year / version-month This document imposes the restriction on the selection of the year and month components that new values MUST NOT be selected if the next published version is backwards compatible to the current version of the XML schema document. Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 4

Example: A version particle for a draft published in June 2005 /2005/06 2.9 version-year The year of publication MUST be given using four digits: version-year = 4DIGIT The value for the year particle MUST be chosen according to the Gregorian calendar. Example: A year particle for a draft published in 2005 AD 2005 2.10 version-month The month of publication MUST be given using two digits using a leading zero where appropriate: version-month = 2DIGIT The value for the year particle MUST be chosen according to the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian months January through December are in ascending order associated to the values 01 up and including to 12 Hence the value 01 denotes the publication month January and Example: A month particle for a draft published in June 06 2.11 part Where necessary, projects MAY define namespaces having specific-part elements of arbitrary length: part = / token [ part ] Restrictions outlined in chapter 2.5.1 MUST be followed. Example: Some example part particles /foo /foo/bar /foo/bar/baz Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 5

Example: Concrete part particles defined by the current draft ByteIO specification /transfer-mechanisms/simple /transfer-mechanisms/dime /transfer-mechanisms/mtom 2.12 extension This rule defines an extension point for later documents and extended specifications: extension = token The rule named token MUST be interpreted as in [RFC2616] chapter 2.2. Other documents SHOULD exploit this extension rule. However, if the need exist, they MAY alter the interpretation of parts of this document. 3. Security Considerations This document defines rules and guidelines on how to create namespaces for GGF Research Groups and Working Groups. It touches the concept of Corporate Identity which may need protection by legal terms and conditions. For example, there are no procedures known to the authors that will be followed in case of fraudulent use of ggf.org etc in namespace definitions that are not endorsed by GGF. Such legal steps are out of scope of this document, and should be considered by GFSG prior to publishing this document in the GFD series. Having said that, no other security actions are required. Author Information Michel Drescher Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Ltd. Hayes Park Central, Hayes Park Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE, U.K. Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com Ali Anjomshoaa EPCC University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, U.K. ali@epcc.ed.ac.uk Acknowledgements We are grateful to numerous colleagues for discussions on the topic covered in this document, and to the people who have provided comments on the public drafts. Thanks in particular to (in alphabetical order, with apologies to anybody we have missed): Michael Behrens, Donal Fellows, Neil P Chue Hong, Greg Newby, Andreas Savvas, and David Snelling Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 6

Intellectual Property Statement The GGF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the GGF Secretariat. The GGF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this recommendation. Please address the information to the GGF Executive Director. Full Copyright Notice Copyright (C) Global Grid Forum (2005). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the GGF or other organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Grid Recommendations in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the GGF Document process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the GGF or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE GLOBAL GRID FORUM DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." References RFC2119 RFC2616 RFC2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 7

Appendix A. Complete rule set This appendix lists the complete set of rules defined in this document: namespace = common-part [specific-part ] common-part = scheme customs.ggf.org scheme = ( http extension ) :// customs = schemas extension specific-part = project version [ project part ] project = / <project acronym> version = / version-year / version-month version-year = 4DIGIT version-month = 2DIGIT part = / token [ part ] extension = token Appendix B. Outlook on further actions This specification has been developed having mainly namespaces for XML schema documents and infosets in mind. However, other considerations supported this specification. For example, this document has been heavily influenced by the plans on how to update the GGF related WWW presence. Combined efforts led to the idea to provide a centralized repository for all published XML schema documents and infosets. This way, programmatic XML document validation can be performed online, supporting the idea of a ubiquitous (Grid) network. In the end, all these considerations and discussions led to the general URL pattern for XML namespaces to ease the integration of the XML schema document repository into the overall GGF WWW presence. To enable this combined effort, GFSG may decide to enact a general infrastructure policy stating that every namespace defined by GGF may be interpreted as a URL that a centralized repository operated by GGF delivers a XML schema document when queried using that URL that the delivered XML schema document is identified by the very namespace used as a URL to query the central XML schema repository. Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com 8