OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: WebCGM v2.0 Submitted for OASIS Standard


OASIS Members:

The OASIS CGM Open WebCGM Technical Committee has submitted the following
specification set, which is an approved Committee Specification, to be
considered as an OASIS Standard:

WebCGM Version 2.0

The text of the TC submission is appended.

You now have until 15 December to familiarize yourself with the submission and
provide input to your organization's voting representative.

On 16 December, a Call For Vote will be issued to all Voting Representatives of
OASIS member organizations. They will have until the last day of December,
inclusive, to cast their ballots on whether this Committee Specification should
be approved as an OASIS Standard or not.

Members who wish to discuss this ballot may do so through
member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org.

In accordance with the OASIS Technical Committee Process, this Committee
Specification has already completed the necessary 60-day public review, as well
as two additional 15-day public review periods as noted in the submission below.

The normative TC Process for approval of Committee Specifications as OASIS
Standards is found at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.4

Any statements related to the IPR of this specification are posted at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/cgmo-webcgm/ipr.php

Your participation in the review and balloting process is greatly appreciated.

Mary

Mary P McRae
Manager of TC Administration, OASIS
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
phone: 603.232.9090

-----------------------

As Chair of the WebCGm TC I am submiting the following items to the TC
Administrator: 

(a) Links to the approved Committee Specification in the TC's document
repository The approved Committee Specification can be found at

   XHTML multi-file:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/CS2/webcgm-v2.0-index.html
   PDF: http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/CS2/webcgm-v2.0.pdf
   XHTML ZIP archive:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/CS2/webcgm-v2.0.zip

(b) The editable version of all files that are part of the Committee
Specification

   XHTML multi-file: http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/CS2

c) Certification by the TC that all schema and XML instances included in the
specification, whether by inclusion or reference, including fragments of such,
are well formed, and that all expressions are valid

   The schema for the XCF (XML Companion Data) is delivered as part of the
specification and has been tested and sucessfully parsed.

(d) A clear English-language summary of the specification

   See http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/CS2/WebCGM20-Intro.html

(e) A statement regarding the relationship of this specification to similar work
of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing organizations

   WebCGM 2.0 supersedes WebCGM 1.0 located at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-WebCGM-20011217/
   WebCGM 2.0 is concurrently being processed as a W3C Recomendatation is is
currently undergoing Proposed Recommendion process in the W3C:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PR-webcgm20-20061017/

(f) Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they are
successfully using the specification

   The following companies have successfully implemented WebCGM 2.0
     ITEDO Software
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200611/msg00012.html)
     Larson Sofware Technology
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200611/msg00011.html)
     System Development, Inc.
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200611/msg00014.html)
     Ematek GmbH
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200611/msg00013.html)
   Also, see the implementation report at
http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/implementation-report.html

(g) The beginning and ending dates of the public review(s), a pointer to the
announcement of the public review(s), and a pointer to an account of each of the
comments/issues raised during the public review period(s), along with its
resolution

   Public review number 1 (25 March 2005 to - 25 April 2005)
        Announcement:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200503/msg00006.html
        No substantive comments received by the public review.

   Public review number 2 (13 September 2005 - 28 September 2005)
        Announcement:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200509/msg00006.html
        No substantive comments received by the public review.

   Public review number 3 (20 October 2006 - 4 November 2006)
        Announcement:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200610/msg00020.html
        No substantive comments received by the public review.

(h) An account of and results of the voting to approve the specification as a
Committee Specification, including the date of the ballot and a pointer to the
ballot

   Voting to approve WebCGM 2.0 as an OASIS Committee Specification
   began 6 November 2006 and ended 13 November 2006.  One hundred
   percent of the voting members of the WebCGM TC voted to approve.
   Results can be found at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/ballot.php?id=1143
 
(i) An account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any earlier
attempts to standardize substantially the same specification, together with the
originating TC's response to each comment

   No prior attempts have been made to standardize WebCGM 2.0.

(j) A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the originating TC

   The WebCGM comments archive is located at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm-comment/

(k) A pointer to any minority reports submitted by one or more Members who did
not vote in favor of approving the Committee Specification, which report may
include statements regarding why the member voted against the specification or
that the member believes that Substantive Changes were made which have not gone
through public review; or certification by the Chair that no minority reports
exist

   No negative votes were received, and no minority reports were
   submitted.



Dave Cruikshank




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]