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

[William Cox <wtcox@comcast.net>]

Marc -

Thanks for your comments; I've responded already to many of the comments you reference.

I think Ken's statement that you cite ("...OASIS has to make the process of writing specifications easier...") is one with which ALL of us with limited time can agree. Other considerations, such as attaching metadata to artifacts, will ease search, retrieval, and mangement, and also improve efficiency of our work in OASIS.

bill cox

Marc Goodner wrote:

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.

The URN RFCS are incomplete and ambiguous; the sections describe how to use those RFCs with OASIS artifacts. There are also promises in the RFCs (like the URN resolution service) that were never done, and should be deprecated in some manner.

The previous public review of these guidelines (in the archives of oasis-member-discuss) had a number of comments on the then-requirement for RDDL; after listening to the negative comments the RDDL requirement was dropped. These public discussions/reviews can, I hope, drive us toward a useful set of policies that will  help OASIS move to a stronger set of document management tools, while allowing those of  us still in the stone age to find unambiguous, non-conflicting names for artifacts.

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.

The issues have been raised.

 

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.

The metadata in section 4 (required metadata) is ALREADY being provided via the document templates you're using in  your respective TCs. I would quote Moliere, but it's getting late...

 

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

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