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

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

Fulton,

I don't think its that simple.  The 3.0 is already out there for xAL - so the errata needs to be applied to that as a separate task - and those schema changes posted there.

Changing the namespace will cause existing SW to fail.

Best to leave the namespace same - just update the schema.

I think we're OK - so long as we separate the two sets of changes - and just note that for the xPRL there's a need to use the xAL with errata applied.  (Aside - also that errata will only effect a small number of people).

DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> From: Fulton Wilcox <fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com>
> Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 9:16 am
> To: kumar.sydney@gmail.com,  ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> 
> Ram,
> 
> Despite impact on present adopters, it would seem that folding the errata
> corrections into a 3.1 is the better way. At some point that merging is
> necessary, and sooner probably is better than later.
> 
> If the only change that present adopters face is changing namespaces in a
> strictly mechanistic way (every reference to version 3 becomes 31) the
> impact on project costs and timelines would seem to be modest. 
> 
> If instead they are substantively affected by the corrections and have to
> alter what they have already implemented to accommodate the errata changes,
> probably they (and later adopters) are better off. There is always the risk
> that "errors" end up being set in concrete and become the new "truth."
> 
> 
> 						Fulton Wilcox
> 						Colts Neck Solutions LLC
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kumar.sydney@gmail.com [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:29 AM
> To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> 
> 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