RE: Issues with the requests for public review

[James E Cabral <jcabral@mtgmc.com>]

Chet,

I submitted the CSD requests.  Based on your recommendation, we can skip the public review of the web services SIP.

I apologize for leaving the link to ZIP files out of the agenda and minutes.   I wasn't sure how you wanted to handle the PDF and HTML or the tracked changes.  Please accept the changes and replace the PDFs and HTMLs with the updated versions.

I appreciate the specific recommendations for going forward.  We'll do better in the future.

  Thanks,

Jim Cabral
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
www.mtgmc.com
(206) 442-5010 Phone
(502) 509-4532 Mobile

Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chet Ensign [mailto:chet.ensign@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:24 PM
To: James E Cabral; ECF List
Cc: Paul Knight; TCA
Subject: Issues with the requests for public review

Hi Jim,

We started work on the two ECF requests, 15-Day Committee Specification Draft Public Review Request for OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC
(http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN-874) and 15-Day Committee Specification Draft Public Review Request for Electronic Court Filing 4.0 Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 2.01
(http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN-875) and we have run into some issues that I need to review with you all.

1) The approvals in the minutes simply say: "Jim Cabral has updated ECF 4.01 core and web service SIP specifications- we need to approve as revised committee specifications. A vote was held to approve the revised committee specifications as noted above and the motion to approve was passed."

I need to have the URL to the document(s) being approved in Kavi included documentation of motions to approve working drafts for processing and the same URLs included in the ticket. That way, anyone who wants to follow the steps in a spec's development can connect the dots from what the TC approved to what we ultimate publish in the OASIS Library. Language like...

"Does the TC approve updated ECF 4.01 core (contained in
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/45046/ecf-spec-v4.01-csprd02-jec-revisions.zip)
and web service SIP specifications (contained in
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/download.php/45045/ecf-v4.0-webservices-v2.01-csprd02-jec-revi)
as Committee Specification Drafts and further approve releasing them for public review? A vote was held to approve the revised committee specifications as noted above and the motion to approve was passed."

. will meet my need perfectly and make sure that everyone can follow what the TC has voted upon.

2) The document provided for ECF 4.01 core
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/45046/ecf-spec-v4.01-csprd02-jec-revisions.zip)
contains the doc file from the last public review with change control turned on. Please in future send me final copy with all changes accepted. I have a hard and fast rule not to touch the content prepared by the TC so that there is never any confusion about where changes to that content came from. If I accept all the changes and subsequently a problem is found in the content, the question of where the problem came from is muddied by my having touched the file.

In addition, you used the same filename as the last public review which makes it more confusing for me to keep this copy clear from its predecessor. Please in future use a new name with -wd## so it is clearly labelled as a TC working draft and not a file produced by us.
E.g. ecf-spec-v4.01-wd02-jec-revisions.doc.

Last, you included a -diff.pdf, html and pdf files and some others.
Please only provide us with the editable source and other related files (xsds, etc.) that are actually part of the specification.
Otherwise, I have to throw out files and risk throwing out something that you intend to be part of the specification. Such as the metadata.xml.

For this release, I will throw out the html, pdf, -diff.pdf and ~angelog.doc and assume that all the other folders and files are intended as part of your specification. But I really don't like doing this lest I throw out something by accident that you intended to be included.

3) The document provided for Web Service SIP specifications
(ecf-v4.0-webservices-v2.01-csprd02.doc) appears to be identical to the version that was publicly reviewed last October. I ran a file compare and found no differences. Is that correct? If so, why send it for another round of public review?

4) I need to have the the Committee Specification Draft ticket as well as the Public Review ticket in my queue to cover both actions - creating the csd and creating the csprd and launching the public review.

So, to recap:

1. Please enter the Committee Spec Draft tickets for me at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tc-admin-requests/committee-specification-draft-creation-upload-request

2. For ECF Core, I will accept all changes to the .doc file, throw out the pdf, html and -diff.pdf and prepare a CSPRD for public review.
Going forward, please accept all changes and send me a finished document and only the other component files that are part of the spec.

3. For Web Services, please let me know if there is really a need to proceed with the public review. If the wsdl is the only file that has changed, I don't see a need to do that.

4. Going forward, please create a new copy of the spec with a new working draft filename and include that and associated files in your ZIP. You don't need to create HTML, PDF or -diff files as we do that ourselves.

5. Going forward, please include the link to the URL in Kavi in your motions when you approve work products to be processed to CSD or other stages so that I have that connect-the-dots linkage in the public record.

Apologies for the length of this but it has taken Paul and I both several hours to sort this all out and I want to help you avoid any delays in processing your requests in the future.

Please let me know if you have any questions on any of this.

Best,

/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-378-3472
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn:    http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter:        http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook:  http://facebook.com/oasis.open