Some +1's for the comments on ASIS to date

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

As I only just subscribed to this list and can not reply to what I see in the archives (seems this is a long lamented shortcoming of the mail archives here) I’ll collect my +1’s here while I collect my own feedback.

 

To Norm’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00004.html

“However, I don't think the document is ready for adoption. There are simply far to many places where it's unclear or underspecified.”

 

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. His concerns about the involvement of the TC Administrator will be echoed in my own comments. His line numbered comments are very thorough and I don’t see any that leap out at me as something I disagree with. In fact I think his comments here are good enough I question why I would go through the effort to reproduce a less complete version of his list.

 

To Chris’ mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00002.html

 

Again, as in Norm’s mail I question what more I can add to this discussion. +1. In particular the comments regarding RDDL and namespaces, there is no reason every TC should have to go through the same startup costs around this and the guidance provided in the ASIS is of no substantive help. I don’t understand why so much time was spent on URN (with notes that seem wholly inappropriate about wanting to change the referenced RFCs) and almost no attention was given to namespaces. Also I agree that the products should be beneath the TC subtree, doing otherwise only invites naming collisions. I also don’t understand how the relationship of the products to the relevant TC would be clear to the public in such a scheme.

 

To Ian’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00003.html

 

Yes, a big +1. We had the same problem on the RX call this week. I can’t wait to have the discussion in the SX TC this week which will unfortunately be too late for comments to come in from that TC.

 

To G. Ken Holman’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00005.html

 

Another big +1, especially to this “I believe OASIS has to make the process of writing specifications *easier* in order to help people with limited time involved in the already lengthy process of writing to produce something that can be used.  Therefore, the burden should be focused to accomplish the goal and not so broad as to deter contributions.” Exactly.

 

Right now I don’t think ASIS is a step in the right direction to accomplish this. It may be that we need all of this metadata, but for now this document only worries me about complicating my participation in a TC and increasing my work in any editorial tasks I might volunteer for. I think the goal for ASIS should be to get the right metadata *and* reduce the work load on those who volunteer for editorial tasks within a TC.

 

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/