RE: [soa-rm] SOA-RM version 1.0 - says who?

["Matt MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com>]

So....

Docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm -> kavi location of latest?

The only problem with that for them would be the more general OASIS case
where there is expected to be several revisions of a specification.  We're a
bit special I guess.  Perhaps we need different document classifications
(spec vs. rm, etc.) so that different versioning semantics could be applied.

-matt


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:28 PM
To: Matt MacKenzie; McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca
Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] SOA-RM version 1.0 - says who?

"Certainly 1.0.1 could come out for errata, right?"

Well, that's just the bit I don't buy into, or at least not in the way the
process seems to guide us: I would argue that if there are errata, for
example, to the RM then they should be included in a new *file* that could
be called, eg, RM_v1.0.1.pdf; but that any *pointer* (==URI) to the RM
*standard* should not - ever - be changed, even if the reference resolves to
a new text (like with an http redirect, which for example I use consistently
on my web site). Any text *should* carry both the URI of the standard and
(possibly) of the specific current and earlier versions of the text. Maybe
this is what is intended and planned. In which case, fine.

In this way, you maintain a stable URI pointer to the standard, and leave it
to the black box to resolve to the most recent version (default) or other
appropriate version (on request, according to context, language, etc) - in
other words, an SOA-style loose binding at the interface ('I want the
standard') rather than a tight-binding to the file ('gimme
blabla_v1.7.9_jp_with_extra_fries.odf now please').

That's where my concern's coming from: there is only one RM standard, even
if we inevitably have to keep the door open to multiple file instances, with
possible errata or changes, but users should be pointed to the standard and
not the specific file.

To be fair on OASIS, the "masters of the universe" or at least the
"architects of the WWW as we know it" (aka W3C) have royally screwed up on
this one: afaik, there is no way to point a user to a namespace for, say,
the *current* XML spec; you have to know exactly which version. In some
cases, the version you are parsing against may be important, in other cases,
you just want to work against the current standard. You can't do this
because W3C took the tight-coupling approach....

I know I've gone on enough about this - and certainly bored the pants off
the OASIS admin and leads on this issue - but I think we are only scratching
the surface of a much bigger headache to come if we cannot come up with a
more solid information architecture model in the future for identifying and
discriminating information resources...

Respectfully,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] 
Sent: 17 October 2006 16:18
To: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; peter@justbrown.net;
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] SOA-RM version 1.0 - says who?

I don't think that versioning it at 1.0 has to mean that 2.0 is in the
cards.  Certainly 1.0.1 could come out for errata, right?

I'm not reading too far in.  I agree that a 2.0 would be a statement that
1.0 wasn't valid.

-matt

-----Original Message-----
From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca [mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:09 AM
To: peter@justbrown.net; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] SOA-RM version 1.0 - says who?

Peter,

Knowledge increases daily.  I think the Periodic Table of the Elements is a
classic example of versioning....

I do not think you are a grumpy old %?&*.  In fact I would say just the
opposite.

Yes, thanks to Duane and to all of the editors!

Wes

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] 
Sent:	October 16, 2006 5:26 PM
To:	soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:	[soa-rm] SOA-RM version 1.0 - says who?

<rant RichterScale="2">
I don't want to be the killjoy at the party but did we specifically ask for
our spec to be given a version, announced here as v1.0...?
I know that on my last post I must have come over as a grumpy old bastard,
but I just don't buy the idea that a reference model can have a version...In
my view, it is or it is not a reference model, period. 

If there is a new "version", it is because some fundamental aspect of the
SOA paradigm has changed: in which case it would no longer be SOA....

I know that there are other reference models out there that have versions
too, but conceptually I still think the idea sucks!
</rant>

I look forward to "The Timeless Way of Building v2" (with apologies to Chris
Alexander - he always said he couldn't understand IT people's reasoning
about modelling and design).

A big thank you to our chair, for keeping this group, oddballs like me
included, together for more than a year - well done!!

Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Members Approve SOA-RM as an OASIS Standard

The Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture v1.0 specification has
been approved as an OASIS Standard. The SOA-RM is an abstract model for
understanding significant entities and relationships between them within a
service-oriented environment, and for the development of consistent
standards or specifications supporting that environment.
Congratulations to members of the OASIS SOA Reference Model TC and all those
who participated in the implementation, review, and voting process.

http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200610/msg00004.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ongoing Public Reviews

60-day review of WS-RM and WS-RM Policy v1.1 ends 21 Oct.
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200608/msg00005.html

60-day review of WS-Resource Metadata v1.0 ends 22 Oct.
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200608/msg00006.html

60-day review of Web Services Business Process Execution Language
(WS-BPEL) v2.0 ends 9 Nov.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200609/msg00004.html

60-day review of UBL Naming and Design Rules v2.0 ends 12 Nov.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200609/msg00007.html

60-day review of WS-SX WS-SecureConversation v1.3 and WS-Trust v1.3, ends 14
Nov.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200609/msg00008.html

60-day review of WS-TX Atomic Transaction v1.1 and WS-Coordination v1.1,
ends 14 Nov.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200609/msg00009.html

60-day review of Materials Markup Language PR1, ends 14 Nov.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200609/msg00010.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Events

19-20 Oct
ITU-T and OASIS Workshop and Demonstration of Advances in ICT Standards for
Public Warning Geneva, Switzerland
http://www.oasis-open.org/events/ITU-T-OASISWorkshop2006/index.php

25-27 Oct
OASIS Open Standards
Sydney, Australia
http://www.open-standards.com

2-3 Nov
DITA Europe Conference 2006
Frankfurt, Germany
http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/DITAeurope/index.htm

8-9 Nov
OASIS Open Standards Day Germany
Wiesbaden, Germany
http://www.tekom.de/upload/alg/CfP%20OOSD.pdf

13-17 Nov
UBL International 2006
Copenhagen, Denmark
http://www.ublconference.com/

28-29 Nov
OASIS Adoption Forum
London, UK
http://www.oasis-open.org/events/adoptionforum2006/

Next Year:

15-20 Apr 2007
Fourth Annual OASIS Symposium
San Diego, USA

All events:
http://www.oasis-open.org/events/calendar.php

----------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS News is published in English, Japanese, Korean, and Russian.
Volunteers to translate the newsletter into other languages are welcome;
contact communications@oasis-open.org.

Archives: http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis_news_archive.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------

This email list is used solely by OASIS for official consortium
communications.

Opt-out requests may be sent to member-services@oasis-open.org, however, all
members are strongly encouraged to maintain a subscription to this list.

smime.p7s