[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-calendar] Jira Issues with WS-Calendar MIN
I noticed that TCADMIN found a template issue with the WS-Calendar-MIN document. i.e., that there was no proper artifact request and it is using the Streams template.
The Streams specifications was being worked in parallel with the WS-Calendar PIM document. As PIM is an abstract information model, it includes no normative serialization, and therefore no schema. Comments from ASHRAE and others indicated a strong interest in having a schema that represented the minimal schema that was PIM conformant and semantically transformable into WS-Calendar. Another perspective would have described this as a WS-I conformant version of the WS-Calendar schema.
The original Streams template request is at https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TCADMIN-1097.
The specification streams-v1.0 included all degenerate/simplified versions of WS-Calendar. It was the TC’s sense at that time that Streams was significantly different than the other sections of the document. Conversation within and around the TC suggested that chapters that did not involve the Stream artifact itself looked a lot like the minimal PIM conformant schema, but that the description was somewhat muddled.
At that time, a straw-man document with the working artifact name MPC (minimal PIM-conformant schema) was shared in the TC. This document was a fork of the Streams document, with some chapters going to each specification. We also felt, at that time, that the MPC name was too much inside pool, and so a name of MIN was chosen. It was when I was entering the request for preparation of a public review that I noticed that the artifact name MPC still appeared in the Abstract of this specification. I noted this in the request and asked if it would be acceptable to TCADMIN assistance to fix this before release (It is non-material as the artifact name MPC has never been seen in the wild and it adds confusion.)
On Review, TCADMIN noted that the working document had not been made from a template generated by a formal template request. The fault was mine, and flowed from the document history outlined above.
The motion that sent this document to TCADMIN to prepare for Public Review reads as follows:
Motion: "TC resolves to issue WS-Calendar Minimal PIM-Conformant Schema Version 1.0 WD05 and its associated files packaged together in the WS-Calendar-MIN-v1.0-wd05.zip archive at https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=57123&wg_abbrev=ws-calendar as WS-Calendar Minimal PIM-Conformant Schema Version 1.0 Committee Specification Draft 01 and submit Committee Specification Draft 01 for a first 30 day public review.
We further direct the Chair to perform any actions required by the TC Administrator, including but not limited to submission forms, to accomplish that issuance and public review as soon as practicable.
We further direct that the PDF version of the specification is authoritative."
I want to focus on the second paragraph here. I propose making the formal request for the new template that was not requested earlier. I can transfer the content of the existing WD05 into the approved template, producing WD06. I can prepare a DIFF document at the same time for review of honest transfer. I can do this either before or after Public Review, but I believe that this is covered by the Committee motion above.
The TC has already cancelled any meetings in the next few weeks during the public review. Delaying for re-authorization would serve no purpose. This is an initial public review, so there are no “surprise changes” introduced to reviewers by this approach.
If I receive the new template in a timely manner, I can do this today.
tc
“It is the theory that decides what can be observed."
—Albert Einstein
Toby Considine
Phone: (919)962-9073
Information Technology Services
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NCEmail: Toby.Considine@unc.edu
Chair, OASIS OBIX Technical Committee
Chair, OASIS WS-Calendar Technical Committee
Editor, OASIS EMIX, Energy Interoperation TC
From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MIN and templates
You recalled that MIN was part of Streams originally - and forked the document by deleting MIN from Streams, hence the same template.
The original Streams template request is at https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TCADMIN-1097
Suggest you reply privately to TC Admin, and then the history ONLY to the TC.
ADD the CSPRD01 version in Jira for MIN. I'll comment there on the RDDL details.
I'll comment to TC admin that they should include sample text on namespace documents in the ^#$#@ starter documents. There is ZERO guidance, so people obviously look at previous final versions.
Separate email to you on Jira releases and projects.
Thanks!
bill
--William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
On 12/30/15 11:20 AM, William Cox wrote:
Toby -
I've bit my tongue and NOT sent my snarky reply to Paul's snarky note - I've NEVER received a note saying that RDDL was not acceptable, only a 2013 note saying "now deprecated because we couldn't handle un-deprecating it after Mary left..." (paraphrased)
So the snark is not useful, though it did get my attention.
On the template issue, I did search the WS-Calendar archives and didn't find a template for MIN; Paul's suggestion was "send this back to the TC to request a proper template." In the interest of getting the thing out, perhaps requesting a template with whatever name you want (preferably matching what's there) might accelerate things.
On the RDDL and Namespace documents, there is nothing at all in the templates, so I've always copied and pasted from reviewed previous versions.
There is nothing related to Namespaces in the template excepting the cover page.
Energy Interoperation OASIS Standard dated 11 June 2014 has the RDDL language and there was not a peep from ANYONE on the subject...it's a non-normative reference.
I do prefer the "new" format for namespace documents, but one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Thanks!
bill--
William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]