Stian Soiland-Reyes updated TAVERNA-1026:
    Labels: gsoc2018  (was: )

> Update usagerecord to GFD.204
> -----------------------------
>                 Key: TAVERNA-1026
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-1026
>             Project: Apache Taverna
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Taverna Server
>            Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: gsoc2018
> taverna-server-usagerecord is based on the XML Schema in Open Grid Forum 
> specification [GFD.98|https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf] which defines 
> the namespace http://schema.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/urf
> The newer version from Open Grid Forum is 
> [GFD.204|https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.204.pdf] - specifying Usage Record 
> Format 2.0 in namespace http://schema.ogf.org/urf/2013/04/urf
> (Not relevant: for some reason both namespace URLs give 404 Not Found)
> It might be worth considering updating to URF 2.0 as it supports more 
> "cloud-like" properties etc.
> I've already added the JAXB bindings to the package 
> org.apache.taverna.server.usagerecord.xml.urf2 - note that for OGF license 
> reasons we can't bundle the URF schema in our git repository - but these 
> derived JAXB annotations are OK (given the NOTICE entry).
> This task is to consider the effect of updating the usage of the older 
> org.apache.taverna.server.usagerecord.xml.urf and the convenience 
> org.apache.taverna.server.usagerecord.JobUsageRecord -- these are being 
> created and exposed by taverna-server-webapp in various places.
> Note that REST API wise this might be a breaking change if done as a 
> replacement, as the XML namespace and several element names and attributes 
> have changed since URF 1.0. We can consider this to be OK, or do URF 2.0 as 
> an additional exposure instead.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to