[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Schemas
Robin - I'll be away and out of touch the next two weeks and parts of the following week (will be here in the office tomorrow) so before I go I want to be sure our work is moving along. I sent out revisions of the seven documents August 4 to correct the problems you cited with the July 28 versions; see http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/search-ws/email/archives/201108 /msg00008.html We still need an overview document, and aside from that I think the remaining outstanding issue is the schemas. Note it the message below I last suggested that we simply declare all schema references non-normative, and to not include them on the OASIS server. You were going to get back to me on that. The problem is this. OASIS requires a copyright notice within the schema if it resides on the OASIS server. These schemas need to be mirrored at LC. It is fine for all normative links to these to point to OASIS, there still needs to be copies at LC. The copies at LC would be identical, except we would want to omit the copyright notice. If OASIS will go along with that - files in both places but the copies at LC omit the copyright notice - that will work. Otherwise I would like to see if we can do as I suggested above, include them at LC only with non-normative references.... Or, if OASIS would waive the copyright rule for these schema, that would work. --Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:52 PM > To: Denenberg, Ray > Cc: Robin Cover > Subject: Re: Schemas > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > <rden@loc.gov> wrote: > > Robin - given the copyright policy as you have explained it, let me > > ask you a simple and straightforward question. > > > > Would declaring all schema references non-normative be an option? And > > simply not including them on the OASIS server? > > I think it's not a viable option, but I should discuss the matter with > Chet Ensign (lead authority in TC Admin team), as he would need to > support a final decision. I strikes me as even more complex than joint > copyright, and possibly contentious. Chet is on a sailboat near > Bermuda and will be back in the office midweek next (we assume), so I > can brief him at that time. > > Hey... why does he get to be on a sailboat! ;-) > > - Robin > > > > > > --Ray > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:25 PM > >> To: Denenberg, Ray > >> Cc: Robin Cover > >> Subject: Re: searchRetrieve: locations identified by HTTP-scheme > URIs > >> > >> Thanks for updates... replies inline at [rcc*] > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > >> <rden@loc.gov> wrote: > >> >> Where canonical locations are identified (e.g., HTTP scheme URIs > >> >> are now attested), per our discussion, I think it would be best > to > >> >> reference the OASIS URI references rather than the 'loc.gov' URIs, > >> >> though I understand that either URI should work at all times, and > >> >> that the resources (when dereferenced) should be identical at all > >> times. > >> >> Mirroring/sync expected. > >> > > >> > That's fine. Just to be sure I understand, at > >> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/oasis/, the links should be OASIS > >> > links rather than LC. I'll change them as soon as we know what > >> > they are (and the files are in place). > >> > >> [rcc*] > >> > >> yes, whenever it's optimal timing for you to change them in the > >> process of making updates > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >> For the files as they will be installed on the OASIS web site in > >> >> the official OASIS Library, we also require a Copyright Notice; > >> > > >> > Does this mean that the files on the OASIS site would have the > >> > notice, but the copies at LC wouldn't need them? (So actually the > >> > files would not be > >> > identical.) > >> > >> [rcc*] > >> > >> 1) I meant to say that the files, by OASIS rule, need to have a > >> copyright > >> notice that's accurate to the approval date, maturity level in > >> publication, etc. Since we want to have "canonical" files > >> (expecting > >> that LC will essentially re-publish/redistribute/mirror the > >> canonical), > >> then we want to ensure that the files are not different on the > LC > >> web site than on the OASIS site, or anywhere on the Net > >> > >> 2) If you wanted to pursue the notion of a joint copyright statement > >> (joint ownership of IP), then we could do that, and all files > >> canonical + mirror would say "Copyright OASIS Open and LC... > blah > >> blah" -- but the files would be identical wherever they are > >> published, > >> canonically and on any mirrors, with that joint ownership > >> statement > >> > >> 3) While I am no IP-sympathizer or IP-monger (patents, copyright, > >> trademark)**, I know that OASIS conventions for joint ownership > >> and joint-IP (copyright) are somewhat complex, and in all four > >> cases I know about, involve a special MOU/Liaison relationship > >> between the orgs to explain how "forking" works, e.g., how > >> change management, sync, and "forking" are or are not allowed > >> by the parties who jointly own the IP. I would not recommend > >> this path if you and LC want a quick solution > >> > >> My views about IP (law), worn on my sleeve: > >> > >> http://xml.coverpages.org/patents.html > >> http://xml.coverpages.org/drm.html > >> http://xml.coverpages.org/trademarks.html > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >> if all the schemas are considered to be relevant to the > >> specification > >> >> as a whole something like: > >> > > >> > Well, you can see from the message I posted earlier to the TC that > >> > there is a somewhat complex relationship between these schemas and > >> the > >> > specs, but I think it is best to simply consider them all to be > >> > relevant to the specification as a whole. > >> > >> [rcc*] > >> > >> OK, let's see how this fares with TC review; we can accommodate > >> either method of handling, but I suspect the users/adopters would be > >> best served by having a single directory like /schemas/ and > "relevant > >> to the specification as a whole" > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> I spotted so far the following as potentially relevant to > >> >> adjustment with respect to value of schemaLocation=" (etc, in a > >> >> URI reference for domain 'loc.gov') > >> > > >> > Yes, these can all be changed. > >> > >> [rcc*] > >> > >> OK > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> scan.xml:2:<scanResponse xmlns="http://docs.oasis- > >> open.org/ns/search- > >> > > >> > By the way, the scan.xml is an extraneous file, not part of the > spec. > >> > (It's an example instance file.) Only the.xsd (schema) and .wsdl > >> files > >> > are relevant. > >> > >> [rcc*] > >> > >> OK, noted. > >> > >> > > >> > --Ray > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Robin Cover > >> OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML > >> Daily Newslink > >> Email: robin@oasis-open.org > >> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/people/staff/robin-cover > >> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ > >> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html > >> Tel: +1 972-296-1783 > > > > > > > > -- > Robin Cover > OASIS, Director of Information Services > Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink > Email: robin@oasis-open.org > Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/people/staff/robin-cover > Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ > Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html > Tel: +1 972-296-1783
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]