[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Re: [oasis-member-discuss] FW: [members] A ballot to approve continuing with the submission of Energy Interoperation V1.0 with Non-Material Changes to an OS vote has been set up
There are a few matters in this ball of yarn. If we unravel them in the wrong order, we will get confused, and fixate on the wrong things. There is a trivial
issue of typography that the editor, blat him did not catch. That must be addressed first. (1) Peter Brown submitted a comment that we should use the released version rather than the draft version. This was non-controversial. He then committed the
kindness of submitting what that reference should be. This submitted reference flowed through at least one of the chairs, multiple correspondences by the committee officers, and through the editor and into the document. It was considered non-substantive, because
it was a correction to the final rather than to the working draft. I can prepare a set of attachments with all the emails if folks like, but for, I am asserting that this was non-controversial, and can be traced. I state the
entire history because I will need to loop through it a few times. (2) In the comment submitted by Peter Brown, the “reference” mark morphed from SOA-RA to SOA-RAF. This was odd, because it actually points to an artifact named
SOA-RA. Here is the URI from WD41 that supports this.
http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/soa-ra/v1.0/cs01/soa-ra-v1.0-cs01.pdf. Whether this was an error or cut and paste, or whatever, this changed “bookmark” flowed through the entire process traced above. The editor recalls noting the change when reading the comment, and things were still to be done tomorrow. “I’ll have to be sure to catch that one, as it will
break all the reference”. Unfortunately, when it became “things to do today”, the editor forgot all about it. That is the full and complete story of how we got an childless reference whose children are never seen anywhere in the document. It is also the tale of how
the five references to SOA-RA in the document became orphans. Fixing that error (changing the name of the reference back to what is was originally) will require a WD41, but that is editing and typography only. (3) Once that change is made, we have another separate issue. Should the long-standing reference to SOA-RA (not SOA-RAF) in the document be normative or non-normative.
It was non-normative initially. In part, this was because some on the TC objected to a normative reference to a working draft. I honestly believe we spent so little time on that issue that no history can be reconstructed. Peter Brown’s comment put it in the Normative Section, and it flowed through the process above. It is no longer a working draft, so that seemed appropriate
to all who discussed it. I believe it is controversial now only because prior to making the correction in (2), it appeared as if we had a normative reference that was never used. (4) Care is good in a spec, and especially in something heading (I hope) to be an OASIS standard. I note that no one commented at all on the removal of one
normative spec at the same time set of edits. VAVAILABILITY was previously listed as both a Normative and a Non-Normative reference. It is incorporated into the OASIS specification WS-Calendar, but the
TC felt that referencing the draft RFC would make it easier for the implementer. (5) XSD is referenced and used throughout the document. XSD was added as a normative reference. (6)There were several inconsistencies in the OASIS references, both normative and non-normative, that were highlighted by Peter Brown’s comment/submission.
Those were all made consistent with current recommendations as confirmed by TC-Admin. Now, having unraveled all the confusing noise, we have the simple question, is moving the existing reference to SOA-RA from Non-Normative to Normative, as suggested
by Peter Brown’s comment submitted during review, appropriate. My thinking is as follows: a)
It is no longer a rough draft b)
It is referenced multiple times in the document (mutatis mutandis as above) c)
The language used in several of those references makes it appear normative. However: d)
It is not a hill I care to die on, or even stub my toe on e)
If someone wants to push it down, it matters little because f)
1-6 will require a WD42 anyway. tc T “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
– George Bernard Shaw.
From: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Chet Ensign Members of the Energy Interoperation TC, Could I ask for a response to the second concern that Martin has expressed. I think Peter has answered the first question just fine but I do think the non-normative/normative question needs to be addressed. Thanks very much for your attention, /chet On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> wrote:
-- Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]