[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Review of OASIS Artifact Identification Requirements(includes URN, namespace updates)
/ Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com> was heard to say: | This was supposed to have been forwarded to the TC for review; I | didn't see it come across the email list so I'm (re)posting. I had the impression that some private review was being solicited before this document was surfaced in the public, but I am delighted to see that I was mistaken. The entity resolution list is public, so in the interest of making my comments public, I am reposting them here: I have a number of technical comments about the draft, but before I go into that level of detail, I want to begin with a painful, high-level observation: I think this document approaches the metadata problem it seeks to solve in fundamentally the wrong way. I say that with trepidation and a horrible sense of responsibility since it clearly draws some of its inspiration from the work that Karl Best and I did in 2001. In the intervening years, I have changed my position[1] on the central question of "names and addresses" such that I no longer support URNs at all for the sorts of artifacts Karl and I were attempting to name. The URN registration process requires that a new URN scheme describe its purpose and the procedure used to construct a URN in that scheme in exact detail. That is why RFC 3121 describes an ontology of artifacts and a procedure for constructing compound names (URNs) from the artifacts, their titles, types, versions, and other metadata. I think adapting that methodology for naming artifacts with http: URIs is a recipe for disaster. The process is rigid, brittle, confusing, and unnecessary. The public will not understand it, TCs will find it crushingly burdensome, and it will not scale. Please don't do it. At the end of the day, a member of the public, looking at a document produced by an OASIS TC, needs to be able to quickly, easily, and unambiguously answer some simple questions such as: 1. What is this? 2. Who produced it? 3. Is it the most recent version? 4. If it's not the most recent, where is the most recent? 5. What is its status? 6. When was it produced? 7. What has the TC done since it produced this? I propose that you adopt a much simpler alternative. It is not without points over which there may be controversy, but it has proven to be robust and scalable. First, decide what metadata you will require every TC to associate with every document that it publishes officially. (As a corollary, you want to make sure that every draft that is distributed unofficially is distinct from all the official drafts.) The current draft lays out most of this metadata (and some other elements that I don't think are necessary under this alternative proposal): 1. A TC Name 2. A Title 3. A Version, if appropriate 4. A Revision, if appropriate 5. A Stage 6. An Abstract 7. A Language I think it would make sense to include a few more things: 8. An Editor (or Editors) Name (or Names) 9. A Date 10. A Copyright 11. Some sort of IPR statement 12. Links to any appropriate feedback URIs or email addresses It may be valuable to associate some boilerplate with the document as well. Second, require that every TC provide all of this data in a machine readable form. I propose that the most straightforward way to do this is to require that the normative version of each specification be expressed in XHTML and to require that the "title page" of that XHTML document contain this metadata in a form that is both visible to the reader and can be extracted by a tool. This may be a point of controversy since the current process allows the normative version of artifacts to be published in other formats. Briefly, I think that's a mistake too. The web is how documents are distributed in the modern world and (X)HTML is the lingua franca of the web. (The fact that the current process allows the normative version of a specification to be published in *both* (X)HTML and PDF is totally unacceptable as it will eventually result in two putatively normative specifications that do not agree with each other.) As to the URI used for these specifications, I think it would be sufficent to use the short, administrator approved, product name to construct the URI as follows: http://docs.oasis-open.org/name-of-tc/name-of-product/ The administrator can make sure that no product name is ever reused by a single TC. I think it would make sense if the URI above identified the "current version" of the product specification. It would also make sense to publish a dated URI as well to point to specific versions: http://docs.oasis-open.org/name-of-tc/name-of-product-YYYY-MM-DD/ As to the naming of various other artifacts associated with the product (schemas, images, stylesheets, etc.), I think it's probably sufficient to say that every one of them must be reachable (at least indirectly) through links from the normative specification. I hope that these comments are helpful and I do regret that these comments are probably quite radically different from what you had expected. I think if you'd done more of the work on this document in public, it would have been possible to make these suggestions earlier when it might have been less difficult to make the necessary changes. Be seeing you, norm [1] http://norman.walsh.name/2004/03/03/266NorthPleasant -- Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc. NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]