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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: Re: [emergency] Comments on 1.0.1 Spec

Hi Andre,

While your suggestions make good sense and I certainly agree, having 
taken up the task of realigning my own work with the recently 
released specifications for OWL/RDF, the primary reason that dublin 
core and similar resources were not included, was that we did not 
have a member suggesting it at the time when this specification, 
which has just concluded its public comment period and is now in 
final revisions before submission for OASIS-wide approval, was being 

Fortunately for all of us, we can start on CAP 1.1 as soon as we get 
this much-needed specification out the door. We have already decided 
not to take more time trying to get consensus on the multitude of 
suggested improvements and fixes for hypothesized troubles that we 
could all contribute at this stage. Harmonizing our own suggestions 
with the growing body of standards efforts is something that is 
already on our agenda, and I, in particular, have volunteered to work 
at creating liaison relationships with other TCs, standards bodies, 

So we certainly want to encourage you to join up if you can. You have 
good ideas. As with the work of many TCs and WGs there are many, many 
overlaps we need to address, harmonize and actively develop 
interoperating apps to prove out the viability of our work.


At 2:52 PM +0000 1/27/04, ahiotis@infoknowledge.com wrote:
>-In the category sub-element of the info element should we add
>a code value for "Application Vulnerability". This is another OASIS
>TC for the exchange of information related to security vulnerabilities of
>applications. I assume that Cyber-Security messages can also be communicated
>via CAP.
>-audience element and others within the resource element.
>Some of these elements (audience, format, type, coverage, identifier, date) 
>have already been defined with associated encoding schemes and are currently
>being used by a number of other groups and standards as part of the 
>Dublin Core
>DC standard. http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/
>The question is why are we not using dc.audience for instance?
>This message was sent using Travel-Net Webmail.
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request

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