Re: [xri] Two WD07 comments

[Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>]

Bill,

I was just on a call with Will and Eran. Will will respond to your first point - since Appendicies are non-normative we can always add another example in CD02 without it being a substantive change. I agree with Will and Eran that TC members have had months now to review the draft and make such suggestions so there is no justification for holding up the CD vote to add another example now.

On your second point, I am one of the people who feels strongly there is a good reason to highlight active contributors vs non-active contributors in the Ack section of a spec - this is what we did in XRI Resolution 2.0. However the criteria should be both current and past active contributors, so it was a mistake not to include you in the active contributor list (you were active in the XRI Resolution 2.0 spec and were acknowledged in its Ack section). So Will is going to make that correction.

So net net is that I don't think we'll need to have either subject on the agenda for tomorrow's call, however you can bring up either subject on the call if you'd like.

I'm in Oslo myself and depending on my plane schedule tonight will or
will not be able to make the call, but Peter will definitely be able to
chair it.

I'll send the relatively brief agenda for the call now.

=Drummond

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Barnhill, William [USA] <barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:

Overall it looks very good, but I have two things that I think should change:

The first is that I think the example in Appendix B is too minimal. I feel there should be at least one example that makes varied use of the <type> and <link> elements. Perhaps an example of an XRD corresponding to an i-name that links to that individual's services (with another example XRD for one of the services).  I think by having a more robust example we will increase the understanding of people who are reading the spec from outside the TC and can better demonstrate XRD's usefulness above current alternatives.

The second is the acknowledgements section. Why have two portions? I can think of no good or valid reason to separate the contributors into what could be interpreted as first-class contributors and second-class contributors. I'd suggest re-wording to get rid of the second block and integrate those names into the first block, all in alphabetical order, before taking this to committee draft. If we need to denote who is not a current member of the XRI TC, then put a * next to their name with a footnote explaining that starred individuals are not currently voting members of the XRI TC.

I will be on the call tomorrow. Drummond/Peter, can I get the above two items added to the agenda for tomorrow's call?

-- Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php