Re: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM 2.0 XCF namespace question

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

My thoughts are at the end...

At 03:20 PM 6/3/2005 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>I've been in contact with Mary McRae at OASIS regarding our namespace.
>
>Here's the question I posed:
>
>This is really to define the unique namespace to be used in conjunction 
>with WebCGM 2.0 XML Companion Files.  It does not need to be resolvable, 
>just unique along with the defnitions.
>
>It appears W3C has a standard that looks like:
>http://www.w3.org/yyyy/area where yyyy is the year and area is the 
>technology.  For example the SVG namespace is http://www.w3.org/2000/svg 
>and there is something similar for the XML namespace.
>
>Has OASIS put any thought into standardizing the format of namespace 
>definitions?
>
>As CGM Open we could adopt a W3C form (http://www.w3.org/1999/webcgm) or 
>an Oasis form (http://www.oasis-open.org/webcgm) or, if we process WebCGM 
>2.0 through both organizations it might make more sense to use something 
>like http://cgmopen.org/webcgm.
>
>Mary responded:
>
>While we do not yet have a final version of the artifact identification 
>document done yet, I'm confident that you can use
>"docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm"
>
>Depending on your requirements, you may want to always point to the most 
>recent version of webcgm (which the above namespace would provide) or more 
>specifically, "docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0" to
>get to the 2.0 release.
>
>Lofton then responded:
>
>Having seen Mary's replies, and pondered the impact of possible OASIS-W3C 
>effort, I wonder if we shouldn't go for something functional 
>but  organizationally vague for now.  By "for now", I mean for an expected 
>2nd CD publication, in early July timeframe.
>
>How about if we use this for now?
>
>http://www.cgmopen.org/2000/webcgm
>
>Mary then responded:
>
>OASIS specification documents, specification file names and IRIs must 
>conform to OASIS policy per the new TC Process. The work is being 
>conducted within OASIS and under OASIS process rule. While not exactly 
>docs.oasis-open.org, cgmopen.org is an OASIS site. If the work moves 
>forward jointly, www.cgmopen.org/v2.0 can be used; otherwise 
>docs.oasis-open/cgmopen/v2.0 would be the proper place.
>
>Me again:
>
>She may have meant www.cgmopen.org/webcgm/v2.0?  If we intend to process 
>through both OASIS and W3C, this might be the best approach.
>
>Thoughts?

Mary's reply makes my suggestion about "organizationally vague"  moot for 
now.  As long as we are progressing solely as OASIS standard, we should 
(must) follow the OASIS convention.

Altho' not REQUIRED to resolve to anything, personally I think it is nice 
to have a few words there, as SVG has done.

Presumably "/webcgm/" should be in the URL, and presumably its omission is 
a typo.  Whether or not we should specialize it for 2.0 is still an 
issue.  I don't know the arguments pro and con.  SVG chose NOT to do so, in 
going from 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.2 (*major* increment in functionality).  I'd 
like to understand why not, before taking a position on version-neutral 
versus version-specific.

Regards,
-Lofton.