RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ram,

What is the issue with xAL errata?  I'm not seeing why this is a big deal - its just errata - and therefore relate to the existing xAL.  Just because its in the same review package - is not confusing or unclear.  The package is xPRL 3.1 + xAL errata needed to support that.

I'd grab that 15 day review!!!

DW



> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> From: kumar.sydney@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 12:29 am
> To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> 
> Team,
> 
> If we do option 2, this could be a problem as the namespaces of the schemas have to be changed from urn:oasis:names:tc:ciq:xnl:3 to urn:oasis:names:tc:ciq:xxx:31. I do not want this to happen as it will impact the current implementers of V3.0. This is NOT the IDEAL solution and it looks ugly. I also need to change all original v3.0 documents that do not discuss xPRL to now discuss about xPRL. 
> 
> The introduction of xPRL should not have any impact on current users except xAL schema errata. 
> 
> Releasing xPRL v3.0 on its own looks good except that I do not know how to release the xAL v3.0 schema errata. Any release of xAL V3.0 schema errata on its own is not possible. It has to go with V3.1 release of the original V3.0 specs. If we have had individual specs. for xNL, xAL, xNAL and xPIL (like in v2.0), we could have release V3.1 xAL specs. that covers the errata. 
> 
> Therefore, I am confused. Not sure how to approach this problem!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ram
> ------------------------------
> TC Members,
> 
> OASIS TC Admin have come back to my request for 60 days public review of xPRL V3.0. As per TC process, only the following can be done:
> 
> - Release V3.1 (of November 2007 release) with xAL errata fix for 15 days public review
> 
> or
> 
> - Package xPRL V3.0 and xAL errata as part of a new version of CIQ (Version 3.1 and includes specs. released in Nov. 2007) for 60 days public review
> 
> Please let me know your suggestions. Looks like the later is better.
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ram