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

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

Mary,

That's much clearer.

So - looks like the 3.1 option - but without the namespace change - is the best option.

Although that takes a 60 day hit - in long haul - as Rex noted - this is the better outcome.

Ram - thoughts?

Thanks, DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 11:59 am
> To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info>
> Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>,  <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
> 
> Hi David,
> 
>   The issue is that there are two separate issues that are getting conflated ;-)
> 
> 1. CIQ v3.0 as approved as a Committee Specification does *not* include xPRL.
> There are two options - move xPRL forward as a separate specification, or
> incorporate it into the existing CIQ spec (and therefore making it CIQ v3.1)
> 
> 2. Problem with the xAL schema. This was reported by the emergency management TC
> and is only encountered when using one particular development environment. In
> order to correct this the TC needs to submit 3.0 for another 15-day public
> review and then approve as CS (CS02)
> 
> Now, combining the two will require the version number of CIQ to bump from 3.0
> to 3.1. However, I don't see this as something that would require the namespace
> itself being updated. (Note: this is why many TCs use URIs rather than URNs for
> namespaces and also why they do not include version numbers or dates).
> 
> So, if CIQ 3.0 is updated, it goes out for a 15-day review. If CIQ is expanded
> to include xPRL, it goes out for a 60-day review and becomes CIQ 3.1.
> 
> I hope that makes sense?
> 
> Mary
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:41 AM
> > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; kumar.sydney@gmail.com
> > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> > 
> > Mary,
> > 
> > So where is the issue here?  Now I'm confused!!!
> > 
> > DW
> > 
> > p.s. We need to get those 3 member use verification statements done for
> > V3.x and get it public.  I'm working on a "CAM kit" for V3.x - so that
> > should make it easy for people to do that verification of use.  More on
> > that next week...
> > 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> > > From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> > > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 11:35 am
> > > To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info>
> > > Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>,  <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > >  Unfortunately CIQ isn't an OASIS Standard; it's never reached that
> > status.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:18 AM
> > > > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > > > Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; kumar.sydney@gmail.com
> > > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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