On second thought, why don’t we proceed to CD right away based
on Rev42 of WS-02.
Thoughts?
Luc
Luc Clément
Sr Director of Products
Active Endpoints, Inc
+1.978.793.2162 | luc.clement@activevos.com
From: Luc Clement
[mailto:luc.clement@activevos.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 15:55
To: 'Dave Ings'
Cc: bpel4people-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [bpel4people-editors] RE: [bpel4people] Spec Rev 42 Posted
and ready for submission to the TC
From: Dave Ings
[mailto:ings@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:01
To: Luc Clement
Cc: bpel4people-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [bpel4people-editors] RE: [bpel4people] Spec Rev 42 Posted
and ready for submission to the TC
I've re-read the OASIS process several times
now :-) and if you are voting on an interim document it must be at least a
Committee Draft. For instance, in http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#definitions,
"Working Draft" is any version of a specification or other
document produced by the TC which has not yet received any level of approval
from the TC.
[lc] I’d like to give the TC an
opportunity to review the current working draft, and then for the Editors to
start working on WD-03. By the sounds of it, the Editors can proceed with this
without a TC vote. Notwithstanding we’d like the TC to review the current
working draft and provide comments before kicking off work on WD-03.
The matter of issuing our first CD is a
separate matter. I propose that we only proceed to the CD once we’ve
incorporated BP-16 (RFC2119) and BP-17 (Conformance Statements) – this of
course is purely arbitrary on my part and would be happy to hear comments from
you and the Editors on this.
[/lc]
I think it will avoid contention to designate this as our first CD. I don't see
any downside to this. Do you? Some IPR obligations arise from approving a draft
but that should not be a concern for the current membership of the TC.
[lc]I suggest that we push this off as
suggested above. [/lc]
Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: ings@ca.ibm.com
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings
"Luc Clement" ---2008/07/31 11:01:15 AM---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: Dave Ings [mailto:ings@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 09:51
To: Luc Clement
Cc: bpel4people-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [bpel4people] Spec Rev 42 Posted and ready for submission to
the TC
Hi Luc,
Just to confirm - is the SC proposing that we review Rev 42 and then vote on it
as a Committee Draft?
[lc]No,
I see these as separate issues. We’re not suggesting a CD. What we want the TC
to do is review and agree to the changes we’ve incorporated so far. That will
allow us to accept all changes to the documents and proceed to the next set of
revisions.
That
being said, I’d be in favour of generating Working Draft 03 which could serve
as the baseline for the next set of revisions. Let’s discuss during the next TC
call.
[/lc]
That would make sense to me. The conventional
review period for a CD seems to be 1 to 2 weeks maximum in OASIS.
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/download.php/28912/BPEL4People%20TC%20Issues%20Process.ppt
[lc]If
the TC so chooses, we can proceed to a CD. I think though that this is too
early given the number of Open issues and in particular that we have not
incorporated BP-16 (RFC2119) and BP-17 (Conformance statements) [/lc]
P.S. I have reviewed OASIS process and the CD upload package must include the
editable source (.doc I presume), HTML and PDF, as well as designating which is
the authoritative source (.doc I again presume).
[lc]
For the review, I’d like to leave it as PDF. The editors have encountered many
difficulties in line numbering used by Word. We were astonished to discover
that line numbering differs between reviewers in North America and
Europe, between versions of Word, and Word for Mac. Doing a review using
Word is simply not practical [/lc]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#specQuality
Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: ings@ca.ibm.com
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings
"Luc Clement" ---2008/07/30
01:52:37 PM---Dave,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave,
The Editors have completed work on the first batch of edits. This represents
Rev 42 of WD-02. Rev 42 includes all issues identified at [1]. We’ve packaged
at [2] marked up PDFs, and XSD and WSDL documents, and propose to have TC
review the set. I think that we should post [2] to Kavi. If you agree, please
do so.
Once the set is approved by the TC, we plan to accept all changes to the source
Word document and start working on the next set of Resolved Issues.
Please review and let us know how you would like to proceed.
Luc
Luc Clément
Active Endpoints, Inc
+1.978.793.2162 | luc.clement@activevos.com
[1] Applied Issues List: http://www.osoa.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10060&status=10002
[2] PDF Markups, XSD/WSDL Documents: http://wsbpel4people.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/wsbpel4people/Specifications/snapshots/rev42.zip?view=log