[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
Fulton, I don't think its that simple. The 3.0 is already out there for xAL - so the errata needs to be applied to that as a separate task - and those schema changes posted there. Changing the namespace will cause existing SW to fail. Best to leave the namespace same - just update the schema. I think we're OK - so long as we separate the two sets of changes - and just note that for the xPRL there's a need to use the xAL with errata applied. (Aside - also that errata will only effect a small number of people). DW > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > From: Fulton Wilcox <fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com> > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 9:16 am > To: kumar.sydney@gmail.com, ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > > Ram, > > Despite impact on present adopters, it would seem that folding the errata > corrections into a 3.1 is the better way. At some point that merging is > necessary, and sooner probably is better than later. > > If the only change that present adopters face is changing namespaces in a > strictly mechanistic way (every reference to version 3 becomes 31) the > impact on project costs and timelines would seem to be modest. > > If instead they are substantively affected by the corrections and have to > alter what they have already implemented to accommodate the errata changes, > probably they (and later adopters) are better off. There is always the risk > that "errors" end up being set in concrete and become the new "truth." > > > Fulton Wilcox > Colts Neck Solutions LLC > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: kumar.sydney@gmail.com [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:29 AM > To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > Subject: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > Team, > > If we do option 2, this could be a problem as the namespaces of the schemas > have to be changed from urn:oasis:names:tc:ciq:xnl:3 to > urn:oasis:names:tc:ciq:xxx:31. I do not want this to happen as it will > impact the current implementers of V3.0. This is NOT the IDEAL solution and > it looks ugly. I also need to change all original v3.0 documents that do not > discuss xPRL to now discuss about xPRL. > > The introduction of xPRL should not have any impact on current users except > xAL schema errata. > > Releasing xPRL v3.0 on its own looks good except that I do not know how to > release the xAL v3.0 schema errata. Any release of xAL V3.0 schema errata on > its own is not possible. It has to go with V3.1 release of the original V3.0 > specs. If we have had individual specs. for xNL, xAL, xNAL and xPIL (like in > v2.0), we could have release V3.1 xAL specs. that covers the errata. > > Therefore, I am confused. Not sure how to approach this problem! > > Regards, > > Ram > ------------------------------ > TC Members, > > OASIS TC Admin have come back to my request for 60 days public review of > xPRL V3.0. As per TC process, only the following can be done: > > - Release V3.1 (of November 2007 release) with xAL errata fix for 15 days > public review > > or > > - Package xPRL V3.0 and xAL errata as part of a new version of CIQ (Version > 3.1 and includes specs. released in Nov. 2007) for 60 days public review > > Please let me know your suggestions. Looks like the later is better. > > Thanks > > Regards, > > Ram > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]