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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

unitsml message

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


Subject: FW: [unitsml] Three motions


The three motions listed below pass unanimously.
    -Bob


Robert A. Dragoset, physicist
Chair of the OASIS UnitsML Technical Committee

Physical Measurement Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Phone: 301-975-3718
Email: dragoset@nist.gov
Website: http://www.nist.gov/pml


-----Original Message-----
From: Dragoset, Robert A. [mailto:robert.dragoset@nist.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:33 PM
To: unitsml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: FW: [unitsml] Three motions



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle, Mark 
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:17 PM
To: Dragoset, Robert A.
Subject: RE: [unitsml] Three motions

I keep getting bounced by the OASIS mail server!  Would you please try forwarding this?




I vote for these three motions.

Mark Carlisle
Systems Integration for Manufacturing Applications (SIMA) Program
National Institute of Standards and Technology
301 975-3982



-----Original Message-----
From: Dragoset, Robert A. 
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:11 AM
To: Carlisle, Mark
Subject: FW: [unitsml] Three motions

Hi Mark,

I don't believe that you've voted on the motions listed below.

Thanks,
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Weber, Martin S. [mailto:martin.weber@nist.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 4:39 PM
To: unitsml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [unitsml] Three motions

Hello TC,
[this message is to be recorded as part of the asynchronous portion of
the January UnitsML OASIS TC meeting]

I do apologize for having these motions so late during the asynchronous
portion of the TC meeting, but we might still get them through before
the meeting ends tomorrow midnight.

So here we are (rationales below):

1) I move that the "ItemVersionHistory" child element of the
"CountedItem" element be moved behind the "ItemSymbol" element.

2) I move that the "UnitVersionHistory" child element of the "Unit"
element be moved behind the "QuantityReference" element.

3) I move that if either or both of above motions get seconded and pass,
we designate the resulting Schema as a new Committe Specification Draft
(please keep in mind that, if this motion also gets seconded, we need a
special majority vote, i.e., everybody needs to explicitely voice a
"yes" or "no").

Rationale for 1):
Bob and I have noticed that the ItemVersionHistory element is stuck
between the ItemName and the ItemSymbol elements. Given that the
encompassing structure is a sequence, this means that a UnitsML author
has to go through this "hiccup" of designating a name, then entering the
version history of the item (if present), and only then can designate a
symbol for the counted item. I believe that grouping "name" and "symbol"
together is more logical. This approach can also be seen in the Unit
element (Name and Symbol are grouped together)

Rationale for 2):
Unit's child elements also can be clustered such as: a) describing the
unit itself, b) describing the unit's relation to other units and
quantities and c) meta-data about the unit in question. Currently the
UnitVersionHistory somewhat stands in the middle. When looking at the
Quantity element for comparison, the QuantityVersionHistory follows the
UnitReference element, leaving the following setup for the quantity: a)
descriptive elements, b) elements describing the quantity's relation to
units (UnitReference) followed by c) meta-data. I think that moving the
UnitVersionHistory behind the QuantityReference would nicely mirror the
setup of the Quantity element. (Keep in mind that the Unit's child
elements also reside in a sequence, so order does matter).

Rationale for 3):
Our current Committe Specification draft would remain standing out there
even if we update the schema. To have the CSD reflect the latest
changes, we need to vote another time on the schema. So if at least one
of the above motions pass successfully, we should make this draft
version the official CSD. And we still can do this during this meeting.

Apologies again & with regards,

-Martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 



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