[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: vote to public our spec as a committee spec [was: System URIs]
Hi all; As I track this thread, upon emerging from my management issues here, to review the discussion thread and examine the issues, I agree that there are issues to resolve, that bear thought and deliberation. I think we should take a moment to consider things, such as the resolution of the uri, and what should be be the base for the absoulte, and the normalisation issue. I vote for a delay. I am not sure that meeting the 1 June deadline it a *good thing* in and of itself. Regards, David Leland ************************************************************ pgrosso@arbortext.com wrote on 5/25/01 5:51:58 PM ************************************************************ With chagrin and apologies, I must retract my affirmative early vote. See my email on normalization of (non public) entries. Since we aren't going to make the May 31 cutoff for a final spec anyway, I don't see the rush to publish a draft with which there remains so many issues. Let's plan to work through the issues in email and see if we can reach a point where we're all comfortable with what we have in a couple weeks. Then we can publish it. paul At 10:59 2001 05 25 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: >At 22:38 2001 05 24 -0700, Lauren Wood wrote: >>On 24 May 2001, Norman Walsh wrote: >> >>> / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say: >>> | This is a little subtle. The strings on the "left hand side" of >>> | system, uri, delegateSystem, and delegateURI entry types are just >>> | strings. It certainly is the case that no attempt will be made to >>> | normalize them. I don't think the spec needs to say this, but I could >>> | be persuaded otherwise. >>> >>> On further consideration, we have to at least change the spec so that >>> the 'left hand sides' aren't of type 'uri-reference'. >>> >>> I'll publish another version tomorrow AM. >> >>Assuming you have this done as you promise, and given we seem >>to have consensus on the circularity issue, I will then propose that >>people take what is leftof Friday to study the draft and I'll put out >>the vote over the weekend, with results due Monday midnight >>Pacific time (as usual). Then we can send it in on Tuesday to >>become what I call a committee specification (and I don't have the >>bylaws here to check what it's really called). > > >I will be on a plane and/or in Europe with not necessarily good >connectivity, so please accept this email as my vote to publish >the latest draft as a committee spec (or whatever it's called). > >This is not a vote to publish the draft as a final whatever that >would then go to a full OASIS vote as a standard. I don't think >we'll be ready to do that before May 31, and I think we should >give up on the idea of doing that. I'd rather we had carefully >resolved all the issues and had to wait a couple months until >Sept for an official vote than rush things as this time. > >paul > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word >"unsubscribe" in the body to: entity-resolution-request@lists.oasis-open.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body to: entity-resolution-request@lists.oasis-open.org ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at http://www.ftnetwork.com Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC