RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

[Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

If there is no normative content that why would Committee Notes have conformance clauses?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mason, Howard (UK) [mailto:Howard.Mason@baesystems.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 4:05 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

I think this lower form of deliverable is exactly what "Committee Note"
is about.  It has no normative content, but provides useful explanatory information about the implementation of a specification or standard, and needs some form of agreement process.  "Guideline" is too specific - "note" is OK.  I guess the ISO equivalent would be a Technical Report.

Such a deliverable form would also cover the sort of gap analysis that is being proposed by the proposed "Identity in a cloud" TC, and which attracted an amount of negative comment because it was not a standard.


Howard Mason
Corporate IT Office
Tel: +44 1252 383129
Mob: +44 780 171 3340
Eml: howard.mason@baesystems.com
BAE Systems plc
Registered Office: 6 Carlton Gardens, London, SW1Y 5AD, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1470151 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
Sent: 08 January 2010 22:07
To: Don Day; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary


                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.


Why not have a new document type below specification, I see this as
trying to force fit and will open TCs up to all sorts of strange things
that may not be appropriate 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Day [mailto:dond@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:01 PM
To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

To side moreover with Ken and JoAnn,

The DITA TC has a number of subcommittees staffed by subject matter
experts for domain-specific content. Some of their deliverables to the
DITA TC which they have requested to be published within the DITA TC
scope consists of best practices or guidelines for their respective
communities, glossaries or term lists, and other collateral that goes
with the use of the DITA Standard within the domain but which is not of
the TC's interest to enshrine as part of the standard. We've recently
had discussion within the TC about "non-normative" as a possible
descriptor for such ancillary documents that fall in the scope of
community-driven SCs to create, but are outside of the TC's direct
charter. We are generally in favor of the process for an expedited but
managed vetting process for such documents.

Regards,
--
Don Day
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions
Email: dond@us.ibm.com
11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758
Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office)

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
 Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
   --T.S. Eliot


 

  From:       "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>

 

  To:         <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>

 

  Date:       01/08/2010 03:34 PM

 

  Subject:    RE: [chairs] Draft  Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

 






In the UBL TC not only do we have standards but also customization
guidelines, naming and design rules, and other adjunct documents that
help users work with the OASIS Universal Business Language.  These
documents need the authority of the committee, but they don't specify
anything that would be construed "a standard".

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

At 2010-01-08 14:12 -0700, JoAnn Hackos wrote:
>Our Adoption TC is certainly interested. We are producing best 
>practices documents and other guides but no specifications.
>JoAnn
>...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
>Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:31 PM
>...
>   While you may not see it in any of the TCs you participate in, a 
>number of TCs are producing documents that they would like to have 
>approved (i.e. the TC is in agreement on the content of the document), 
>particularly in our Adoption TCs, but also by TCs wishing to produce 
>ancilliary documents such as a user's guide or best practices, or 
>possibly a white paper. It could also be a requirements document. The 
>list is far from exhaustive, which is why we have not tried to identify

>each and every possible type of artifact.
>...
>On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any requests to approve "things" that are not
>specifications, thus I question these chnages



--
UBL and Code List training:      Copenhagen, Denmark 2010-02-08/10
XSLT/XQuery/XPath training after http://XMLPrague.cz 2010-03-15/19
XSLT/XQuery/XPath training:   San Carlos, California 2010-04-26/30
Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video
Video lesson:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18
Video overview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal







********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************