Re: namespace issues still

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Just to clarify the reason I wouldn't want to include
the approval day (DD) in the date in the namespace

Quoting http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata04.html#specQuality
"Any change made to a specification requires a new version or revision
number, except for changes made to the title page and in the running
footer noting the approval status and date, which must be made after
the approval of the specification."

The only changes allowed after approval of the draft
are "to the title page and in the running footer noting
the approval status and date". This seems to exclude
the namespace which appears in the embedded
schema and in any examples based on the schema.
So we need to determine and fix these ('set them', as
it were, 'in stone') *before* the ballot. It is risky to
make the date in the namespace January in case the
ballot ends in February. I'd prefer it if we aimed for
a ballot ending in February so we can use 201002 as
the approval date (less risk of an overrun taking us
into March) without a risk of having to change it and
therefore have to have a second ballot for such a minor
detail. I can't see much risk of needing to re-approve a
breaking change to the schema in February too so just
the year and month seems adequate and hopefully we
don't need to wait for TC Admin approval if we keep
exactly to the example pattern by using namespace
'http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/tag-201002'. I will
need to upload new versions of the guidelines and
markup spec/schema though (not the model). I'll
make that correction to the date in the reference to
the model spec in the markup spec at the same time.

Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




2010/1/7 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>:
> Quoting http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html#NamespaceDesign
>
> "HTTP scheme namespace URIs must be rooted at the
> "docs.oasis-open.org" Internet domain using one of the following two
> patterns with the /ns/ path element, unless an alternative URI is
> approved by the TC Administration: (1)
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/<ShortName>/<Versioned-NS-String> OR (2)
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/<ShortName>/ns/<Versioned-NS-String>.
> ShortName is the approved short name for the TC or Member Section;
> Versioned-NS-String is a short string identifying a namespace using a
> versioning subcomponent. For example, given an imaginary TC short name
> 'ws-xx' and a versioned namespace string element 'WS-XX-20080115', a
> NS URI would be: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/ws-xx/WS-XX-20080115 OR
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-xx/ns/WS-XX-20080115.";
>
> I note "unless an alternative URI is approved by the TC
> Administration" and by 'TC Administration' I take it it
> means the OASIS staff, rather than TAG TC.
>
> The pattern which for us would therefore be
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/<Versioned-NS-String>
>
> (where there are no slashes in '<Versioned-NS-String>'
> so that seems to make our existing namespace one
> requiring special TC Admin approval).
>
> This would mean we need something like
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/tag-20100129
>
> The trouble is, to change the namespace I need to change
> the guidelines too (since they include the example markup).
> I don't know if we can assume the approval date will be
> 20100129 and it seems likely it could be sometime in Feb.
> On one hand the date needs to be able to reflect the precise
> committee draft (in case there is a further committee draft
> for version 1.0 requiring a change of namespace). On the other,
> I can't leave the namespace to the last minute after approval
> because the namespace needs to be changed in various
> places besides the titles (e.g. in the example in the guidelines
> and in the schema embedded in the markup spec). So my
> preference, which I think is within our scope of TC discretion,
> is to use a less precise date, just enough to pinpoint a
> uniques comittee draft. Because we might approve in Feb
> (could we time it to do so) more easily than limiting it to Jan
> I'd prefer Feb as a month of approval in case we need a
> second ballot or the ballot is delayed.
>
> i.e.
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/tag-201002
>
> I'd kind of prefer to replace the second 'tag' with 'taml' but
> I'm not sure how much scope the TC has to do this so, unless
> assured by Admin http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/taml-201002
> would be OK, I'll use
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/tag-201002
>
> just to be on the safe side.
>
> It looks like I'll need to create a new set of documents. Sorry.
>
> Best regards
>
> Steve
> ---
> Stephen D Green
>