OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes UBL TC Atlantic call


Hi Eduardo,

Jon took an AI to put a finalized proposal to the list between now and 
the Pacific call which would be a summary of your proposal with the 
choice of the ndr option being the reduced description (the first ndr 
option you mentioned).  Mark will take an AI to update the rule(s) - 
there are several sections this would impact.  As i recall, what Jon 
puts out  should contain your examples as well, at least definitely for 
the parts of the URN that we specify values for (specification-id, type, 
sub-type, and document-id), and rfc 3121 will be noted as the definitive 
source for the overal structure, as you proposed.  We did discuss pretty 
much all the aspects you mentioned in your suggestions.  Many of the 
currently implemented schema urns will change as a result.

*** there was an unresolved question as to whether or not there is 
really a need to specify the version for the specification-id, given 
that there is a version for the document-id.   Most on the call felt 
not..  If you could provide your thoughts on this before (or during) the 
Pacific call today that would be great.

-A

Eduardo Gutentag wrote:

> > Eduardo proposes either deleting the NDR rule or referencing
> > RFC 3121.
> >
> > In the Atlantic call we agreed the following:
> >
> >  We agree to accept his proposal to reference RFC 3121, but we don't
> > agree to delete the rule in total. We need to change the URNs, we don't
> > need to change the filenames. At a minimum we need to say that we use
> > periods and not colons.
>
> My apologies for being unable to participate this morning. I hope this
> summary is an ultra summary rather than an accurate one, because I 
> didn't just
> propose to reference RFC 3121; I thought I had a concrete example of how
> to construct URNs -- has that been discussed? Will the URNs be replaced
> with correct ones? Or has this been postponed further until the F2F?
>
> On 08/04/2004 10:08 AM, Mavis Cournane wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>> please find attached the minutes of today's call.
>>
>> Regards
>> Mavis
>> ---------------------
>> 1. Roll call and welcome by the moderator (Mavis)
>>
>> Mavis Cournane
>> Mike Grimley
>> Jon Bosak
>> Anne Hendry
>> Paul Thorpe
>> Michael Dill
>> Tony Coates
>> Mark Crawford
>>
>>
>>  Text in {braces} refers to items in the work list at
>>
>>       http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/worklist.xls
>>
>>    You should refer to the latest version of this file just before
>>    the meeting begins.  The reference format is
>>
>>       {Sheet_Name:line_number}
>>
>>    where "Sheet_Name" is "UBL10", "Teamwork", etc.
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> STANDING ITEMS
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> {Standing_Agenda:6}  Calendar review
>>                      JG: Check with organizers of OTA conference
>> Deferred
>>
>>
>>                      (October in Chicago)
>>
>> {Liaisons:13} Ontolog forum
>>               PY: Liaison status
>> Deferred
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORK TEAMS
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> {Teamwork:3} HISC
>> {Teamwork:4} SSC
>> AH: Reported on SSC. There are a couple of open items. We only have 2 
>> changes to the namespaces.
>> JB: We will decide on the QA process in Copenhagen for 1.1. For 1.0 
>> we will all sit down and go through the whole list.
>> AH: there was something on UBL Dev that I sent out a question of that 
>> we need an answer on.
>> ==================================================================
>> PRIORITY ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> {UBL10:6} Issues review
>>           TC: Continue review of remaining issues
>>
>> The only issues remaining are:
>>
>>    a.3 Namespace URNs; see previous correspondence.
>>
>> Eduardo proposes either deleting the NDR rule or referencing
>> RFC 3121.
>>
>> In the Atlantic call we agreed the following:
>>
>>  We agree to accept his proposal to reference RFC 3121, but we don't 
>> agree to delete the rule in total. We need to change the URNs, we 
>> don't need to change the filenames. At a minimum we need to say that 
>> we use periods and not colons.
>>
>> Action: JB will write up a proposed rule and send it out to the list 
>> for a vote.
>>    a.4 Attribute names; see minutes of Pacific TC call 20040729.
>>
>> We propose to change the NDR rule
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> WORK LIST ADDITIONS
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> Addition of new items to the work list.
>> None,
>> ==================================================================
>> OTHER BUSINESS
>> ==================================================================
>>
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>>
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]