[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Jira Issues with WS-Calendar MIN
All issues described in this note have been addressed in a newly published WD06 WD05 was made from WD06 as part of the pre-production process of the public review, as directed in the public review motion. It should now be ready for further
processing by TC_ADMIN. To reprise: Moved to official Template prepared by TCADMIN yesterday Removed no-longer-correct references to RDDL in name space description as per TCADMIN Removed reference to MPC, a working ID for this spec replaced by MIN prior to WD01 being published Fixed a spelling error With a bit more substance: Updated references to Availability and XCAL to the Draft Standard and Standard respectively. tc “It is the theory that decides what can be observed." —Albert Einstein
From: ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Considine, Toby 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
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]