Fwd: [ubl-sbsc] Re: [ubl] UBL 1.0 SBS permanent absolute web location (urls)

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Jon,

Hi. That's good. I do need to update the BPSS documents
however with the expected fully qualified urls if that is OK
with the process for a cs. I'll just need a few days to do this
if it's OK to do so. The last posted package will at least
need to be corrected in this regard (each ebbp/bpss file
and the example in the index).

A minor issue seems to be the length of the filepaths deep
in the package. In particular the 'universal-business-process-1.0-...'
being removed in two of the directory names would help.
Would this be a change requiring a further review? If so maybe
it should be left alone.

Many thanks

Steve

On 25/02/06, jon.bosak@sun.com <jon.bosak@sun.com> wrote:
> [stephengreenubl@gmail.com:]
>
> | Just one further question: Should I call it by what I believe
> | should be its final name
> | 'cs-UBL-1.0-SBS-Procurement-1.0'
> |
> | or call it
> | 'cd-UBL-1.0-SBS-Procurement-1.0'
> | or
> | 'wd-UBL-1.0-SBS-Procurement-1.0'
> | requiring final editorial name changes if it is accepted
> | by the TC?
>
> I don't think there's any reason to include "procurement" in the
> name of the 1.0 SBS; there's no other 1.0 SBS from which we need
> to distinguish it.
>
> I don't know what the OASIS policy is on the timing of a change
> from "wd" to "cd" or "cs", but we've been using the label that
> correctly describes a given draft at the moment it's being
> balloted or reviewed.  So when we were voting to make UBL 2.0 a
> committee draft for public review, we called it "wd-UBL-2.0", but
> before sending the approved draft to OASIS, I changed it to
> "prd-UBL-2.0".
>
> With regard to 1.0 SBS, however, it needs no further approval from
> the TC unless there have been "substantive changes" -- we voted to
> send it into public review in January.  So I would just call it
> "prd-UBL-1.0-SBS-1.0" and have done with it.
>
> (There is a nonzero probability that I've gotten mixed up on where
> we are with this one vs. UBL 2.0, UBL 2.0 SBS, and UBL 2.0 SBS
> process definitions, so feel free to correct me.)
>
> Jon
>
>