[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution CommitteeDraft 03
> it seems the me the SAFEST position to take is declare our editable source > as the authoritative version For the moment (until I hear someone argue otherwise), I also believe the editable source would be the format most likely to represent the intent of the authors/editors -- who presumably will have verified the integrity and fidelity of the text most closely in the editable source format. While conversion errors/infelicities should be minimal, in case some discrepancy is ultimately identified, it would be most useful to have the authoritative version embodied in the most-studied (and original "source") document -- not in a derivative format where the discrepancy [error] was initially not spotted. In that case, the TC would have the exquisite delight of certifying that a demonstrable (unintentioned textual) error is in fact "the authoritative version." Now nice. What are the chances that a derived text is "correct" and the original source version "incorrect"? -rcc Robin Cover OASIS, Chief Information Architect Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink http://xml.coverpages.org/ On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Drummond Reed wrote: > I'm also cool with PDF as long as we check the conversion (we need to > anyway). But let me turn this back into a question to Mary: what are other > TCs doing? Are they electing to use their editable source as the > authoritative file, or one of the other two formats? > > > > And in the end, does it really matter that much, i.e., aren't all outputs > supposed to be identical (and shouldn't they be proofed for that purpose)? > However, there is always the potential for errors that won't get caught, so > it seems the me the SAFEST position to take is declare our editable source > as the authoritative version. > > > > But I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll defer to Mary's > recommendation. > > > > =Drummond > > > > _____ > > From: gwachob@gmail.com [mailto:gwachob@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:10 PM > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > Cc: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee > Draft 03 > > > > But we can check this post-conversion, right? > > So if we could be careful to make sure the conversion was correct, I would > still vote for PDF... after all it is supposed to be *portable* ;) > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > wrote: > > Hi Gabe, > > > > The problem is that sometimes characters don't convert properly in PDF > files - I've had several occasions where graphics are misplaced or schemas > or xml examples are corrupted with bogus symbols. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mary > > > > From: gwachob@gmail.com [mailto:gwachob@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:56 PM > To: Drummond Reed > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03 > > > > I'd prefer PDF... since its less likely to have any issues with readers, > version skew, etc. > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net> > wrote: > > Mary, > > Yes, I saw that when reviewing the message you sent out about the recent > revisions to the TC process, and it makes sense to me. > > Since we have always used Word as our editable source, I think it makes the > most sense to declare that as authoritative. > > Gabe or anyone else: do you see any reason not to declare the Word version > our authoritative version? > > =Drummond > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:43 AM >> To: 'Drummond Reed' >> Cc: gwachob@gmail.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: RE: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee Draft >> 03 >> >> Hi Drummond, >> >> I just need one more thing. The new TC Process (effective 1 March 2008) >> requires the TC to declare one of the 3 versions as authoritative (word, >> html or >> pdf). >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-02-05.php#specQuality >> (5th para) >> >> Just let me know which one. The intent is in the case of discrepancy due >> to >> conversions or export routines, etc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Mary >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] >>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 3:34 PM >>> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org >>> Cc: gwachob@gmail.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03 >>> >>> Mary, >>> >>> I am pleased to say the vote to approve XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee >> Draft >>> 03 and submit it for a 15-day Public Review closed last night and it >> passed >>> unanimously, with 18 of 21 voting members voting. A copy of the ballot >>> closure notice is included below. >>> >>> Per my conversation with you, following are the authoritative links you >>> need >>> for the Public Review documents: >>> >>> 1) Normative Word version of the specification on which we held the vote >>> (XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 04 Revision 04): >>> >>> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27431/xri-resolution- >>> V2.0- >>> cd-02-rv-04.doc >>> >>> >>> 2) Normative RelaxNG files referenced from pages 23 and Appendix B of >> the >>> spec. >>> >>> xrds.rnc >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27422/xrds.rnc >>> >>> xrd.rnc >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27421/xrd.rnc >>> >>> (Note that the pointers in the OASIS repositories to the latest version >> of >>> these files, referenced on lines 387 and 388 of the spec, will need to >> be >>> updated too.) >>> >>> >>> 3) Per the comment on line 3772 in Appendix C, the link to the latest >>> xrd.xsd file needs to be changed to: >>> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27430/xrd-v2.0.xsd >>> >>> (Note that the xrds.xsd file did not change.) >>> >>> 4) Lastly, since we will also be submitting XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee >>> Specification for the OASIS Standard vote, the authoritative link to the >>> normative Word document for this specification is: >>> >>> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/download.php/15375/xri- >>> synt >>> ax-V2.0-cs.doc >>> >>> Besides the need to store this document in the docs.oasis-open.org >>> repository and update the links in its front matter to reflect this, we >>> also >>> need to update the reference to this document on line 204 of XRI >> Resolution >>> 2.0 Committee Draft 03. >>> >>> Please call or email me if you have any questions about this. We look >>> forward very much to conducting the second Public Review of XRI >> Resolution >>> 2.0. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> =Drummond >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org >>> [mailto:workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:01 PM >>> To: drummond.reed@cordance.net >>> Subject: Groups - oasis - Ballot "XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03" has >>> closed >>> >>> OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC member, >>> >>> A ballot presented to OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC has >>> closed. >>> The text of this closed ballot is as follows: >>> --- >>> "XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03" >>> Does the committee approve the XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 02 >>> Revision 04 specification (URI below) as a Committee Draft? If yes, does >>> the >>> TC also agree to submit the specification for Public Review? >>> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27432/xri-resolution- >>> V2.0- >>> cd-02-rv-04.pdf >>> >>> This ballot requires a Full Majority Vote to Pass. >>> >>> - Yes >>> - No >>> - Abstain >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Quick Summary of Voting Results: >>> - Yes received 18 Votes >>> - No received 0 Votes >>> - Abstain received 0 Votes >>> >>> 18 of 21 eligible voters cast their vote before the deadline. >>> >>> Voting results for all closed ballots are available on the xri eVote >>> Archive >>> at: >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/ballot_archive.php >>> >>> Thank you, >>> OASIS Open Administration > > > > > -- > Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com > > > > > -- > Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]