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

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

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.

Cheers,

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/ 
>