Re: [ubl] Outcomes of coordination call 16 March

[Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>]

Did anyone capture the issues that were raised that caused the 'defer' 
vote on the clsc extension mechanism?  I can begin to if no one else is, 
since I'm assuming these will be the starting point to continue the 
discussion into 1.1.  Just so as not to lose track of them.   -A

jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:

>The following people participated in a 1.5-hour discussion of
>substitution groups in code lists:
>
>   Jon Bosak
>   Tim McGrath
>   Sylvia Webb
>   Marty Burns
>   Anne Hendry
>   Marion Royal
>   Stephen Green
>   Sue Probert
>   Monica Martin
>   Lisa Seaburg
>   Bill Meadows
>   Michael Dill
>
>At the end of the discussion, a vote was taken on this question:
>
>   Should we:
>
>      1. Adopt the current code list proposal (using substitution
>         groups), or
>
>      2. Continue to use the approach of the current draft schemas
>         (modulo any changes that would make them easier to work
>         with) and defer a decision on the use of substitution
>         groups in code lists until 1.1, constructing 1.0 in a way
>         that will ensure forward compatibility of 1.0 instances
>         with a 1.1 that implements substitution groups for code
>         lists.
>
>   It was noted that the adoption of the rest of the CL
>   recommendation was not in question.
>
>The vote was as follows:
>
>   1. Adopt   2
>   2. Defer   9
>   3. Abstain 1
>
>We will therefore defer a decision about the adoption of a
>substitution group mechanism for code lists till 1.1, taking care
>to construct 1.0 in a way that will allow the adoption of
>substitution groups in 1.1 without breaking 1.0 instances.
>
>Jon
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>