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

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

Mary,

OK - so then we just include a note that this Committee Spec' has dependency on an errata to an existing OASIS standard - and that that errata will be handled separately as OASIS standard update - but details of that are available in {link to kavi zip file}

Correct?

DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 9:30 am
> To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info>, 
> <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
> Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Hi David,
> 
>   There is no provision for errata against a Committee Specification; only
> against an OASIS Standard. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mary
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:17 AM
> > To: kumar.sydney@gmail.com
> > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
> > OASIS
> > at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php