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

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> wrote:

Hi Ram,

Don't change v3.0 to CS02 until *after* the public review and another vote. It should be Committee Draft ##.

Mary

From: Ram Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:15 PM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com

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

Thanks David. Yes, I think this approach gives minimum impact to users as well as minimum

work for me too!

Unless I hear otherwise, I will go ahead with this change. The steps will be:

- Change the V3.0 specs documentation to CS 02

- Call for vote on as Committee Draft 02 and for 15 days public review

- Release it for 15 days public review

- Vote to adopt it as CS

- Release V3.0 xPRL for 60 days public review as we have already approved the release

- Release V3.0 xPRL as CS after vote

Looks OK?

Regards,

Ram

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:10 AM, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Ram,

Neat - that certainly works!

And as us long suffering OASIS spec' editors know - making global changes is extremely fraught - so removing that need and potential for SNAFUs would be my choice too.

Oh joy - yet more ballots to vote on!!

; -)

Thanks, DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> From: "Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 4:04 pm
> To: fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com

> Cc: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>,
> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org, ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Mary and team,
>
> I am glad to read this very useful thread.
>
> As Mary suggested, we can still keep V3.0 as it is, but release it as CS 02
> with this xAL errata change
> only for 15 days public review. Then release xPRL V3.0 for 60 days public
> review. I have instruction manual
> written (step by step) as part of xPRL V3.0 advising V3.0 users how to
> install xPRL as part of existing V3.0 set.
> By this way, we can keep V3.0 and at the same time allow users of V3.0 to
> use xPRL also if they want to.
> Also, I do not need to change all the document references to V3.1, all
> schema documentation and
> example documentations to V3.1.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Regards,
>
> Ram
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Fulton Wilcox <
> fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > From a lifecycle perspective, does altering the software to recognize 3.1
> > (either instead of or in addition to 3.0) consume more effort than your
> > proposal of having people (and software) remember when to apply the
> > errata?
> >
> > It certainly would seem cleaner to bundle everything as 3.1.
> >
> >
> > Fulton Wilcox
> > Colts Neck Solutions LLC
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:23 AM
> > To: fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com
> > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; kumar.sydney@gmail.com;
> > ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
> >
> > 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
> >
> >

ciq message