[jira] [Commented] (TAVERNA-1026) Update usagerecord to GFD.204

["Stian Soiland-Reyes (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-1026?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16311710#comment-16311710 ] 

Stian Soiland-Reyes commented on TAVERNA-1026:
----------------------------------------------

URF2 javadocs: http://taverna.staging.apache.org/javadoc/taverna-server/org/apache/taverna/server/usagerecord/xml/urf2/package-summary.html

> 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
>
> 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
(v6.4.14#64029)