URGENT: deciding whether the Test Assertion Guidelines is a"specification" or a "note"

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

All:

 

Per last meeting we decided  to submit the TA model, markup and Guidelines for CS ballots (model, markup) and CN ballot (guidelines).

Dennis: I think your minutes did not catch correctly the CN intent for the Guidelines (reported as a CS intent) – am I correct?

Anyway, the issue with moving the Guidelines to the newly created non-standard track (as Committee Note), is that – after checking with the OASIS TC admin -  it would require starting again to square one on the CN track, meaning yet another public review of 30 days.

So we (myself and our secretary Dennis) are considering keeping the Guidelines on a “standard” track as the other 2 deliverables, although it has no normative statements and will NOT be moved beyond the Committee Specification (CS) status.

The only real difference, is that the IPR status for Specifications  is not same as for Notes, which by nature do not constrain the TC contributors IP-wise as much as CS do.  Actually our TAG IPR mode “Royalty-Free on Limited Terms”, provides a clearer IP status and protection to users, for deliverables produced as CS rather than CN.

So in the short term, the model and markup are not affected: we move separately the markup and model to CS ballot, as these are the ones to move further as OASIS standards.

But we need to decide as a TC if we are OK with the Guidelines as a “Committee Specification” (as we have always stated in the past it would just be an informational doc without specification status).

For this I plan to schedule a short meeting  Tuesday Nov 9^th, 2pmPT. Please use mailing list to voice your concern if any.

 

Thanks,

Jacques