OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

election-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [election-services] EML 530 =?UTF-8?Q?schema=3F?=


Clarification.  I was the developer for the CA SoS schema - there is NO difference here!

I just overlooked including it in the alpha package - and its already been posted umpteen times on our list in the V5 varient - Sven reminded me.
Plus - if we did make changes - its our call; they then have to decide if they want to be conformant or not.

You can check it Monday - but I think you'll find there are zero changes for their EML 530.

Let's not get too wound round the pole on this one please - this should be simple.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [election-services] EML 530 schema?
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 01, 2009 7:16 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: eml <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

A concern I have here is that we shouldn't provide draft EML schema to
organizations unless we've possed a canonical draft on the E&VS TC
repository. For example, what if the XSD David releases on Monday is
substantively different than the one the CA SoS developed their system
against? I still won't be able to validate the CA SoS' 530 releases
without getting their version of the 530 (or a diff). That's not a
good thing.

I understand that we want to get things out and be as useful as
possible, but there are very good reasons EML is a *standard* and that
drafts are made available publicly via the OASIS web site repository
for our TC. The 530 is not in the v6.0 alpha. (maybe it's somewhere

Can we formally or informally decide that in the future any
transmission of draft schema or documentation "intended for a future
release" will be mediated by the EML TC web site? Or at least that
their is an opportunity for TC members (and possibly members of the
public) to get these documents? If not, we risk not being an open
standard (we'd be a mostly open standard with closed and unclear draft
elements in production environments).

Anyway, sorry to be somewhat of a stickler here but this issue with
the 530 exposes some deficiencies in how we're operating as a
standards-setting TC. I want to emphasize that David's doing a great
job and I don't think we'd be able to do as much (or much at all)
without him... however, we need to abide by certain formal
arrangements here.

best, Joe

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great!
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
>> This is already in the new V6 release.
>> I should have the next complete draft available for everyone over the
>> weekend - just doing some final polish on the documentation and dictionary
>> side right now for our upcoming May meeting

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]