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

[Dieter Weidenbrück <dieter@itedo.com>]

Dave,

> 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.
I'm in favor of this approach. Reasons:

- it points to CGM Open ;-)
- it has the version number rather than a year
  (just in case we have two versions in one year)

One question:
This is the namespace for the XML Companion File only, right?
We decided that the version of the XCF is independent from the WebCGM
version to allow for updates of the DTD without having to change
the profile (Cologne).
So what version number do we use for the DTD? 1.0?

Regards,
Dieter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 12:20 AM
> To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM 2.0 XCF namespace question
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> thx...Dave
> 
> 
> Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
> Boeing Commercial Airplane
> 206.544.8876, fax 206.544.9590
> david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> 
>