Re: [oasis-member-discuss] RE: RDDL use in ASIS

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

WS-RX used the 2.0 form.

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

William Cox <wtcox@comcast.net> wrote on 03/02/2006
10:36:16 PM:

> Hal -
> 
> There's also one at a hidden URL at http://rddl.org/rddl2 identified
> as RDDL 2.0 dated January 18, 2004, with a previous version linked
> and dated February 18, 2002 at openhealth.org (rather than to the
> one of the same date at rddl.org!).
> 
> I haven't tried to compare the versions at this point.
> 
> Chris Ferris did an update to accommodate OASIS metadata; several
> TCs are using that version. Don't know whether he started from 1.x
or 2.0.
> 
> bill
> 
> Hal Lockhart wrote:
> | What do others think? As I said, there was
a lot of pushback on
>     
> RDDL.
>   
> I don't recall reading the pushback on RDDL,
but "and preference to
> have an index.html or one of the other default HTML pages" isn't
> related. RDDL is a mechanism for placing metadata in HTML.
>     
> 
> 
> Ok, for the record, last summer Bill and I tried to figure out the
> standards pedigree of RDDL so we could cite it.
> 
> No sign of it at W3C, not even published as a Note.
> 
> At www.rddl.org, there is a spec dated Feb 18, 2002, no version
> specified. I guess this is version 1.
> 
> At http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/20040118/rddl-20040118.html there
is a
> spec dated Jan 18, 2004 marked as version 2.0. It describes itself
as "a
> draft". 
> 
> At http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html there is a document dated
> June 1, 2003, with no version. Not sure what version this is. Perhaps
> Tim's private version? If it is RDDL 3, it is older than RDDL 2.0.
> 
> All of these contain the sentence "This document has no official
> standing and has not been considered nor approved by any organization."
> 
> There are also a number of articles, implementations and even a
> Wikipedia article (which points to the 2002 version). The 2004 version
> says "While this document has no official standing, it is the
intention
> of the TAG to seek guidance from the W3C membership and the larger
> community on the question of whether and how to progress this document
> and the use of RDDL." As far as I can see there has been no work
done on
> RDDL in 2 years.
> 
> Will the real RDDL please stand up? If this is as great stuff as you
all
> say it is, can't somebody put in enough time to push it thru an OASIS
TC
> or publish it as a TAG Finding? If I put a normative reference to
> something with a pedigree like this in an OASIS Committee Spec and
> submitted it for member approval, I would end up with a bunch of arrows
> sticking out of me.
> 
> Hal
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries
 and  affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted
 and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
this
> by email and then delete it.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> 
>