RE: [chairs] Back to boring old Naming Guidelines, this time with URN section

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

Some minor points from looking at working draft 9:

I like the revised URN section, but, if I understand the intent
correctly, there needs to be
an editorial change at the top of section 6.1. As I understand 6.1.3, a
URN artifact identifier
does NOT follow the pattern defined at the top of 6.1 - it rearranges
the information. That's
fine, but the first paragraph of 6.1 appears to apply to all artifact
identifiers, including 
URN ones.

Hyphens in the owner component (the tc "short" name - e.g ws-caf,
legalxml-legislative,
business-transaction) are converted to underscore in the artifact
identifier, but what happens
when used as the first field of a URL, under http://docs.oasis-open.org.
The TC's mail archive
and key for their web pages will have a hyphen - which pattern is
followed ? (The current BTP
draft is
http://docs.oasis-open.org/business-transaction/business_transaction-btp
-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf)

The stage definitions, and the example suggest that a Committee Draft is
reidentified as public
review draft and then as a committee specification, and the Committee
Specification is 
the document submitted for ballot as standard. The current procedures
say that it is the
Committee Draft that is submitted for public review and ballot. Changing
the identifier on 
a document that is otherwise unchanged, merely because it is going
through further process
seems unwise. Is this the intent ? (There is a related issue of the
status section - I
assume the status section of a document describes the level of approval
it has already
 achieved, not what is being sought.)  Re-identification without
internal change is
especially awkward where it involves namespaces.

Peter
 
------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
web: http://www.choreology.com
email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone: +44 870 739 0066
mobile: +44 7951 536168





> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@comcast.net] 
> Sent: 25 October 2004 16:15
> To: OASIS Chairs
> Subject: [chairs] Back to boring old Naming Guidelines, this 
> time with URN section
> 
> 
> Sorry to distract you all from the process and IPR policy 
> email threads...
> 
> Attached is Working Draft 09 of the OASIS Artifact Naming Guidelines, 
> both clean and with diffmarks from wd08. Due to file sizes, 
> I'm sending 
> the Word versions of both documents.
> 
> The URN section has been rewritten, I hope more clearly, and 
> reinstalled. The examples were changed to reflect the new 
> section, and 
> several points were clarified regarding who assigns what names.
> 
> There's one NOTE/open issue in the URN section -- should namespace 
> declarations be required to use the recommendations for OASIS 
> URNs, or 
> is MAY sufficient? Comments specifically on that, as well as on the 
> entire updated document, will be appreciated.
> 
> Comments to me, or to tab@lists.oasis-open.org if you are a member of 
> that list.
> 
> bill cox
> 
> 
> 


Choreology Anti virus scan completed