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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oasis-member-discuss message

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

Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Some +1's for the comments on ASIS to date

I don't know how I missed Norm's comments in the archives. But a big +1 is in order.

I would also add a BIG +1 to mandating XHTML as THE normative format for OASIS
specs and fully concur with his comments regarding two normative formats.


Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 02/27/2006 07:20:07 PM:

> 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/

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