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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sarif message

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

Subject: Re: Research on keyword usage

No one has to pay for ISO version of OData :-)
On the top of the page where the price of 198 SFR is advertised (https://www.iso.org/standard/69208.html) one finds "The electronic version of this International Standard can be downloaded from the ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force (ITTF) web site" on the to me very interesting freely available standards page http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html one finds the links to the OData (Protocol, URLConventions, CSDL Schema) i.e. core and OData JSON Format. the first is:

Then only one acceptance of license - I think - separates one from the zip file.

All the best,
Am 16.01.18 um 20:23 schrieb Larry Golding (Comcast):
> I’ve now read the various references on keyword usage. I also examined
> OData v4.0 Part 1 Protocol
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/odata-v4.0-part1-protocol.doc>
> (the OASIS standard), as Stefan suggested. Here’s what I know so far:
>  1. RFC 2119/RFC 8174 /require/ normative keywords to be in upper case.
>     ISO Directives Part 2 /permits/ normative keywords to be upper case.
>     So if you want to be both OASIS-conformant and ISO-ready, use upper
>     case. We already do that.
>  2. RFC 2119 allows MUST as a synonym for SHALL. ISO Directives Part 2
>     does not allow MUST. So /it seems/ that if we want to be ISO-ready,
>     we should use SHALL everywhere (but hold on! I’m not done yet…)
>  3. The OASIS keyword guidelines
>     <https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/keyword-guidelines>
>     FAQ say this:
>     *As an editor, why would I use ISO keywords instead of RFC in
>     a specification?
>     *
>     If you are planning on submitting an OASIS TC Specification or
>     Standard to ISO/IEC, you can use [RFC 2119] keywords on a first
>     submission.^4
>     <https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/keyword-guidelines#sdfootnote4sym> However,
>     on subsequent submissions, you will be required to conform to
>     [ISO/IEC Directives], which will require use of ISO keywords.
>     So again, /it seems/ that if we want to be ISO-ready, we should use
>     SHALL everywhere, because otherwise ISO will make us change it.
>  4. The OData v4.0 Part 1 Protocol
>     <http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/odata-v4.0-part1-protocol.doc>
>     (the OASIS standard) uses MUST everywhere.
>     *BUT!*
>  5. In an earlier thread on this topic, Stefan wrote:
>     as OASIS is a public accepted submitter to ISO and with OData as an
>     example, we had no trouble after we made the OASIS Standard stage,
>     to also submit unchanged to ISO, fill in a form, where OASIS stated,
>     that the TC would continue to work on future versions, and then we
>     waited for the many months election period and the bunch of OData
>     standards was concat and wrapped as i[s]  and is now an ISO standard -
>     for free.
>     That makes it sound like we did /not/ have to change to ISO
>     keywords, which contradicts what the OASIS keyword guidelines FAQ says.
> So *Chet*, could you please clarify? /Are/ the ISO and OASIS versions of
> the OData standard identical – do they both use RFC 2119 keywords?
> [*NOTE*: I’d rather not have to buy a copy of the ISO standard to find
> the answer!] Is the OASIS keyword guidelines FAQ wrong, or out of date,
> on this point?
> Thanks for your help!
> Larry

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