FW: Schema 1.0 & OASIS

My query to OASIS and Mary McRae’s response are below. (For easy reference, I’ve appended the relevant sections of the OASIS TC process rules to the end of this message.) If she and I understand each other correctly, there is no rigid connection between a 1.0 version and any OASIS requirements.

As a TC, one thing we haven’t done is to approve what we have as a Committee Draft: “The TC may approve a specification, revise it, and re-approve it any number of times as a Committee Draft.”

-Mark

===========================================================

From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:04 PM
To: Carlisle, Mark
Cc: tc-admin@oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: Technical Committee Process Question

Hi Mark,

In OASIS parlance, you've been working on 1.0 all along. The version number doesn't change, it's the stage. So You are free to continue to approve it as a Committee Draft (01? 02? 03?) (not sure if it has been approved as a CD previously), and you may also decide to submit it for public review, but one does not require the other.

Does that help?

Regards,

Mary

Mary P McRae

Director, Standards Development

Technical Committee Administrator

OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society

email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org

web: www.oasis-open.org

twitter: fiberartisan #oasisopen

phone: 1.603.232.9090

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.

========================================================

On Aug 18, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Carlisle, Mark wrote:

The members of the UnitsML TC feel that the UnitsML schema (currently version 0.9.18) has reached the basic functionality necessary to make the jump to a 1.0 version. We are, however, unsure of the relationship between a 1.0 version, the Committee Draft, and the Public Review Draft. Does declaration of a schema as “1.0” obligate initiation of the public review process? If not, are there any other OASIS procedural steps that are triggered by 1.0 status?

Thank you,
Mark Carlisle

Secretary, UnitsML TC
carlisle@nist.gov
(301) 975-3982

=================================================================================================

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2009-07-30.php#standApprovProcess

3.1 Approval of a Committee Draft

The TC may at any stage during development of a specification approve the specification as a Committee Draft. The approval of a Committee Draft shall require a Full Majority Vote of the TC. The TC may approve a specification, revise it, and re-approve it any number of times as a Committee Draft.

3.2. Public Review

Before the TC can approve its Committee Draft as a Committee Specification the TC must conduct a public review of the work. The decision by the TC to submit the specification for public review requires a Full Majority Vote, and must be accompanied by a recommendation from the TC of external stakeholders who should be notified of the review. The Committee Draft approved to go to review shall be called a Public Review Draft. The public review must be announced by the TC Administrator to the OASIS Membership list and optionally on other public mail lists; the TC Administrator shall at the same time issue a call for IPR disclosure.

Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TC’s archived public comment facility; comments made through any other means shall not be accepted. The TC must acknowledge the receipt of each comment, track the comments received, and publish to its primary e-mail list the disposition of each comment at the end of the review period.

No changes may be made to the Public Review Draft during a review. If changes are required the specification must be withdrawn from review then resubmitted.

The TC may conduct any number of review cycles (i.e. approval to send a Committee Draft to Public Review, collecting comments, making edits to the specification, etc.). The first public review of a specification must take place for a minimum of 60 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a minimum of 15 days. Changes made to a specification after a review must be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent review shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review. Before starting another review cycle the specification must be re-approved as a Committee Draft and then approved to go to public review by the TC.

If Substantive Changes are made to the specification after the public review, whether as a result of public review comments or from TC Member input, then the TC must conduct another review cycle. The specification may not be considered for approval by the TC as a Committee Specification until it has undergone a review cycle during which it has received no comments that result in Substantive Changes to the specification.

3.3 Approval of a Committee Specification

After the public review of a Public Review Draft the TC may approve the specification as a Committee Specification. If any comments have been received during the most recent Public Review period, that vote may not commence any earlier than 7 days after the last day of that Public Review. The approval of a Committee Specification shall require a Special Majority Vote. The TC Chair shall notify the TC Administrator that the TC is ready to vote on the approval of the specification, and provide to the TC Administrator the location of the editable versions of the specification files. The TC Administrator shall set up and conduct the ballot to approve the Committee Specification.

3.4 Approval of an OASIS Standard

Simultaneously with the approval of a Committee Specification or at a later date, and after three Statements of Use have been presented to the TC, a TC may resolve by Special Majority Vote to submit the Committee Specification to the Membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard. Upon resolution of the TC to submit the specification, its Chair shall submit the following items to the TC Administrator… //

unitsml message