[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
Mary, That's much clearer. So - looks like the 3.1 option - but without the namespace change - is the best option. Although that takes a 60 day hit - in long haul - as Rex noted - this is the better outcome. Ram - thoughts? Thanks, DW > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 11:59 am > To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info> > Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>, <kumar.sydney@gmail.com> > > Hi David, > > The issue is that there are two separate issues that are getting conflated ;-) > > 1. CIQ v3.0 as approved as a Committee Specification does *not* include xPRL. > There are two options - move xPRL forward as a separate specification, or > incorporate it into the existing CIQ spec (and therefore making it CIQ v3.1) > > 2. Problem with the xAL schema. This was reported by the emergency management TC > and is only encountered when using one particular development environment. In > order to correct this the TC needs to submit 3.0 for another 15-day public > review and then approve as CS (CS02) > > Now, combining the two will require the version number of CIQ to bump from 3.0 > to 3.1. However, I don't see this as something that would require the namespace > itself being updated. (Note: this is why many TCs use URIs rather than URNs for > namespaces and also why they do not include version numbers or dates). > > So, if CIQ 3.0 is updated, it goes out for a 15-day review. If CIQ is expanded > to include xPRL, it goes out for a 60-day review and becomes CIQ 3.1. > > I hope that makes sense? > > Mary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:41 AM > > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > > Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; kumar.sydney@gmail.com > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > > Mary, > > > > So where is the issue here? Now I'm confused!!! > > > > DW > > > > p.s. We need to get those 3 member use verification statements done for > > V3.x and get it public. I'm working on a "CAM kit" for V3.x - so that > > should make it easy for people to do that verification of use. More on > > that next week... > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > > > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 11:35 am > > > To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info> > > > Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>, <kumar.sydney@gmail.com> > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Unfortunately CIQ isn't an OASIS Standard; it's never reached that > > status. > > > > > > Mary > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:18 AM > > > > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > > > > Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; kumar.sydney@gmail.com > > > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > > > > > > Mary, > > > > > > > > OK - so then we just include a note that this Committee Spec' has > > > > dependency on an errata to an existing OASIS standard - and that that > > > > errata will be handled separately as OASIS standard update - but > > details of > > > > that are available in {link to kavi zip file} > > > > > > > > Correct? > > > > > > > > DW > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > > > From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > > > > > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 9:30 am > > > > > To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info>, > > > > > <kumar.sydney@gmail.com> > > > > > Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > There is no provision for errata against a Committee Specification; > > > > only > > > > > against an OASIS Standard. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:17 AM > > > > > > To: kumar.sydney@gmail.com > > > > > > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > > > > > > > > > > Ram, > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the issue with xAL errata? I'm not seeing why this is a > > big > > > > deal - > > > > > > its just errata - and therefore relate to the existing xAL. Just > > > > because > > > > > > its in the same review package - is not confusing or unclear. The > > > > package > > > > > > is xPRL 3.1 + xAL errata needed to support that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd grab that 15 day review!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > DW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > > > > Subject: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > > > > > From: kumar.sydney@gmail.com > > > > > > > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 12:29 am > > > > > > > To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]