Re: [chairs] Oasis document identifiers - conclusion!

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

The distinction between numbering and describing the parts would be 
entirely up to you.  (You can even do both: ubl-part1-ndr- etc.)  And 
you may want to spell things out rather than use really short, cryptic 
abbreviations: ubl-designrules- etc.  I think you've got all the other 
details right.  (I was the one who introduced the "NDR" abbreviation 
into the UBL work -- my bad! :-)

	Eve

Jon Bosak wrote:
> I (or rather my wrists) strongly prefer the hyphen to the
> underscore.
> 
> 
>>Can any NOT live with this approach to document identifiers?
> 
> 
> Let's see if I understand how this works.
> 
> UBL will probably publish in three parts:
> 
>    Universal Business Language -- Part 1: Naming and Design Rules
>    Universal Business Language -- Part 2: Library Content
>    Universal Business Language -- Part 3: Context Methodology
> 
> So I'm guessing that these would be referenced as follows:
> 
>    OASIS Standard stage:
>       oasis-####-ubl-ndr-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-ubl-ndr-1.0.pdf
>       oasis-####-ubl-lc-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-ubl-lc-1.0.pdf
>       oasis-####-ubl-cm-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-ubl-cm-1.0.pdf
>    Committee Spec stage:
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-cs.html
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-cs.pdf
>       ubl-lc-1.0-cs.html
>       ubl-lc-1.0-cs.pdf
>       ubl-cm-1.0-cs.html
>       ubl-cm-1.0-cs.pdf
>    Working Drafts stage:
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-draft-03.html
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-draft-03-diff.html
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-draft-02.html
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-draft-02-diff.html
>       ubl-ndr-1.0-draft-01.html
>       (etc.)
> 
> Is that right?  Or would these rather be
> 
>    OASIS Standard stage:
>       oasis-####-ubl-1-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-ubl-1-1.0.pdf
>       oasis-####-ubl-2-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-ubl-2-1.0.pdf
>       oasis-####-ubl-3-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-ubl-3-1.0.pdf
>       (etc.)?
> 
> Recall that we have a Class A Liaison with ISO TC 154 in order to
> move business-related specifications like UBL into ISO and that
> ISO nomenclature is (e.g.) ISO 11179-1, 11179-2, etc.  So
> shouldn't our scheme for standards be something like this?
> 
>       oasis-####-1-ubl-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-1-ubl-1.0.pdf
>       oasis-####-2-ubl-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-2-ubl-1.0.pdf
>       oasis-####-3-ubl-1.0.html
>       oasis-####-3-ubl-1.0.pdf
> 
> Jon

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com