Re: [chairs] File naming conventions

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@sun.com>]

Please let me remind you all that Errata and/or Corrigenda are not permitted
by the TC Process (see Section 2(b)). The assumption behind this is that
in anything that is not final, all the TC has to do is correct the draft and
issue it as a new version; that if it is a the stage of a TC Spec and errors
are found, it should be withdrawn, corrected and reinstated as a TC Spec.
And of course that if it is a Standard, it should have gone through so
many inspection before reaching that level that there is indeed no need
for corrections ;)


jkeane wrote:
> A Nit:
> 
> Section 3.2.  "A change-bar form of afirst draft of a clarified charter."
> 
> separate the "a" from "first"
> 
> I have no recollection of encountering the term "change-bar."  Lawyers
> commonly use the term "redline" for exchanging revision to legal documents.
> Is that the same? Is "redline" more common?  In England they "blueline."
> 
> ERRATA
> The issue of errata has two branches, one is the attachment of an errata
> sheet that does not change the original. Court Reporters will issue an
> errata sheet after a party reviews a transcript, rather than re-issue 100's
> of pages of material.  The other is a fix in text, which might correct a
> substantive error or a non-substantive one.  The later is sometimes called
> the scrivener's error. My nit of "afirst" from above counts as scrivener's
> error.  The other is an error like leaving out the word "NO" even though
> everyone agreed to say NO.  That may well warrant a new version, so there is
> simply no question.
> 
> In my own work I've used small letters to signify non-substantive changes
> during document exchanges with a shared document. e.g. We draft a contract
> and both redline it. You can be blue. And agree. When I go to accept the
> changes, which I call version final draft 1.0, which I send to you.  You are
> picky and find spaces and artifacts of redlining, which you fix and don't
> even bother to redline. I'd call that version 1a, not even 1.1 much less 2.0
> In the final PDF 1.0 with the fixes, I would not bother to reflect those
> draftsman version control conventions.
> 
> How do other handle that? At some point this gets impossible academic and
> must be relegated to the rule of common sense and good judgment.
> 
> On a side note. I'm going nuts with a large proposal team. Any suggestions
> (other than an Exchange server) for tools or really useful website for
> document collaboration with redlines?
> 
> Jim Keane
> OdrXML
> 
> 
>    /s/James I. Keane
> 
> 
>    JKeane.Law.Pro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘<Litigation Systems Analysis>’
> 
> 
>     http://www.jkeane.com <http://www.jkeane.com/>
> 
> 
>  20 Esworthy Terrace
> 
>  North Potomac MD 20878
>  Phone: 301-948-4062
>  Fax: 301-948-8924
>  (N.B.: NEW FAX NUMBER)
> 
> Co-Author and Annual Update Editor of
>   Litigation Support Systems, An Attorney Guide 2nd Ed.
> <http://west.thomson.com/store/SearchResults.asp?Keyword=litigation+support+
> systems&ProductType=Products&Submit.x=13&Submit.y=10>
> (WestGroup, 1992, 800 pages, looseleaf, updated through 2002)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philpott, Robert [mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: 'Eduardo Gutentag'; 'chairs'
> Subject: RE: [chairs] File naming conventions
> 
> 
> Eduardo - thanks for the update. A part of me wants to just say okay and
> let's close on it.  But, ... see my (longwinded) comments below.
> 
> Rob Philpott
> RSA Security Inc.
> The Most Trusted Name in e-Security
> Tel: 781-515-7115
> Mobile: 617-510-0893
> Fax: 781-515-7020
> mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:09 PM
>>To: chairs
>>Subject: [chairs] File naming conventions
>>
>>
>>overstrike. The modifications
>>I propose in this revised HTML version are:
>>
>>1) a sentence regarding adherence to the rules in the case of normative
>>output
> 
> 
> [Rob] In section 1, you added the text "Normative output must adhere to
> these file naming rules" to the note on Bullet #2.  The "must" nature of the
> sentence doesn't seem to really fit with all of the bullets here since they
> are all "should's" describing general principles.  I actually would suggest
> taking the entire "Note" off bullet #2 and either place it un-bulleted just
> after the list or put it in Section 3.4 (Rules for TC Output). I'd also like
> to suggest alternative text to yours such as "It is required that all
> normative TC outputs adhere to these general principals and the specific
> naming rules described in Section 3" (if moved to Section 3.4, appropriate
> section reference changes are needed).
> 
> 
>>2) a deletion of tcid in the examples
> 
> [Rob] I can live with the deletion, although I would have leaned toward
> including the tcid; it seems a bit more descriptive.  If I run across a file
> sstc-philpott-foo.doc in my local oasis folder, I know it was a submission
> to sstc. This might be helpful if the description part (foo) happens to
> include the name of another TC (e.g. a document submitted to a TC that talks
> about its relationship to another TC).
> 
> 
>>3) a sentence regarding adherence to the spirit of the recommendation
>>
> 
> [Rob] Looks fine to me.
> 
> There is one TC output that I don't feel the naming convention is clear
> about and I'd like us to include something for it in the document.  Namely,
> how do we name an errata document? It sounds simple enough, but I began to
> dwell on it a bit as we began preparing the SAML 1.1 errata doc.  The reason
> is that a) an errata document is not a formal CS or standard document
> (right?) since it's created after a CS or standard vote, b) your CS and
> standard specs are supposed to include a reference to your errata doc (or so
> says the document template), and c) the errata doc file name would probably
> refer to the CS or standard to which it applies.  That complicates the name
> a bit, I think.
> 
> As an example, what would draft 2 of an errata document for the SAML V1.1
> Committee Specification be named?
> 
> I think I would use the
> "tcid-description-version-draft-revision[-extdesc].ext" format. So should we
> use "sstc-saml-cs-errata-1.1-draft-02.doc" ("description"="saml-cs-errata")?
> Between this and a bunch of other options I thought about, I think this one
> made the most sense.  It's just that the "-cs" is part of the description
> and isn't really referring to the other name format
> "tcid-description-version-cs[-revision][-extdesc].ext"
> 
> In either case, I don't think this is a significant change to the naming
> recommendation - I think we can just add another example line in Section
> 3.4. I'd just like some advice on how to name an errata document.
> 
> 
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.
> php
> 
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair