Re: [tm-pubsubj] Call for vote on new deliverable structure

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

*Mary
> > My vote is "yes" on having two deliverables, but I feel a little uneasy
> > about the titles of the two.
> >
> > "Published Subjects : General Requirements and Recommendations"
> > "Published Subject Documentation : Requirements and Recommendation"
> > These are a little confusing for people outside of our  committee, I think.

*Thomas
> As well as inside

Agreed.

*Mary
> > Published Subjects Requirements and Recommendations
> > Part I:  General Description and Core Components
> >
> > Published Subjects Requirements and Recommendations
> > Part 2:  Documentation  Structures

I would be happy with that, except I don't figure exactly what you mean by "core
components".

And then I suppose you would like having something like

Published Subjects Requirements and Recommendations
Part 3:  Management, Updating and Versioning

Published Subjects Requirements and Recommendations
Part 4:  Use Cases and Best Practices

*Thomas
> Why shouldn't we start with the "PSI primer" (with exactly the content
> Bernard has proposed).
>
> W3C did it for XML Schema Language http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
> "XML Schema Part 0: Primer is a non-normative document intended to provide
> an easily readable description of the XML Schema facilities, and is oriented
> towards quickly understanding how to create schemas using the XML Schema
> language."

Well. I don't think Part 1 as *only* a Primer. If we put some Requirements in it - even
very minimal ones - those are normative.

Bernard

PS: It figures ... we are discussing something while it is voted. What a process ... we
should ask for chair's resignation :))