|
|
Post by smcginnis on May 14, 2019 13:24:55 GMT
Hey everyone, I'm looking for some clarification on what the correct latest Volume schema should be. The Schema Index links to the Redfish-based schema here: redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/Volume.v1_0_3.jsonBut in the base Volume schema (https://redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/Volume.json) latest the $ref there points to: redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/v1/Volume.v1_0_3.json#/definitions/VolumeNote the addition of "/v1" in the URL. That link then gets redirected over to the Swordfish Volume schema at: redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/swordfish/v1/Volume.v1_0_3.jsonThere are some significant differences betwen Volume.v1_0_3 under "schemas/" versus "schemas/swordfish/v1", so I just want to confirm which of the two are the correct schemas to follow, or if they are both valid but dependent on whether the Volume in question is a Redfish Volume or a Swordfish Volume. Thanks for any clarification or guidance you can provide here. Sean |
|
|
|
Post by jautor on May 14, 2019 21:49:57 GMT
The Volume schema is one of those exception cases that we handled, but some publication details have fallen through the cracks that we need to clean up...
Volume v1.0.0 - v1.0.3 were defined by DMTF. After v1.0.3, DMTF transferred ownership (and future release responsibility) of that schema to SNIA under the Swordfish effort. But it looks like there was some miscommunication about the timeframes of release as yes, I see there's two different v1.0.3 definitions. The best answer here is to use the "latest" version from the Swordfish folder (now v1.3.1)...
The Schema Index page was supposed to be updated to include the Swordfish schema (as a link to a full, separate index), but that didn't happen, and we need to fix that.
SNIA re-published all of the v1.0.0-(current) versions that point to the correct, new location under /schemas/swordfish, and if you use the un-versioned JSON schema from either source, you'll get that same list.
We're also going to discuss removing the "old" Volume schemas from the DMTF releases bundles so that there's no confusion - but we will probably include Volume in our documentation as well as the links to the Swordfish schema locations.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Jeff
|
|
fish
Guppy
Posts: 65
|
Post by fish on May 20, 2019 6:57:54 GMT
I never really understood why Swordfish/SNIA don't use separate namespace for the Sworfish schemas, but instead defines schemas is if they are Redfish-schemas, without "organisation" namespace. I find this a but confusing, especially since the swordfish schemas are not part of the Redfish schema releases. What is the reason? I guess separate org. namespace for Swordfish schemas would also make this kind of coordination between Swordfish and Redfish less needed?
/Magnus
|
|
|
|
Post by jautor on May 22, 2019 16:29:45 GMT
I never really understood why Swordfish/SNIA don't use separate namespace for the Sworfish schemas, but instead defines schemas is if they are Redfish-schemas, without "organisation" namespace. I find this a but confusing, especially since the swordfish schemas are not part of the Redfish schema releases. What is the reason? I guess separate org. namespace for Swordfish schemas would also make this kind of coordination between Swordfish and Redfish less needed? /Magnus Since SNIA is an organization (not an OEM or a single company) that has a partnership with the DMTF, we coordinate between the organizations to ensure that there is no conflict/duplication of schemas. So we remove the burden from end users to have to comprehend the organizational authorship by having all of those schemas in a single namespace. I expect we will do that with other organizations in the future as well. And we'd do the same thing for contributed schemas from individuals or organizations. The OEM namespaces are carved up for exactly the same reason - to keep them separate from each other to avoid any name collisions or misunderstanding by end users of what is "standard" and what is a vendor-specific extension. Jeff |
|
