[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Work Product abbreviations for WS-BRSP templates -??
Forwarding to you some options about the OASIS identification of the new profile specifications, for which I requested MSWord OASIS templates. TC admins wants us to decide. In short: (a) Using “long” abbreviations of work titles, such as “BasicProfile12” instead of BP12? (to avoid trademark potential issues). Fine with me. (b) Moving the version ID out of the abbreviation (instead of BP12 or BasicProfile12, have: …/BasicProfile/v1.2/… in the file names)? Here I think the v# is very constitutive of the name of the profile itself, and means more than just chronological versioning: BP20 is NOT the next step after BP12, but a different branch. On the other hand, looks a bit redundant to have “…BasicProfile12/v1.2/ …“ Personally I’d tend to say yes to (a) but am reluctant to approve (b). Opinion? -jacques From: Paul Knight [mailto:paul.knight@oasis-open.org] Hi Jacques, We received your four template requests... nice to see the TC getting off to a quick start with the documents! Before producing the templates and setting the pattern for the file names, I'd like to list out the file names which would result from your requests [1] and suggest a couple of alternatives. The proposed Work Product (WP) abbreviations are: BP12, BP20, RSP10, and BSP11. The most noticeable issue is the repetition of the Version numbers in the WP abbreviations and in the actual Version identifier. Based on your requests, we would have file names like: While these names are "legal", I think they are probably not what the TC members really want... (I did not see any discussion of file names in the TC minutes.) A simple change would be to remove the version from the WP abbreviation and just use the Version identifier, which would give us: However, there is another constraint in the Naming Directives [2]: "Filenames and directory names must not contain the trademarked names of products, companies, or other corporate entities where the mark is not owned by OASIS." I think this means that "BP" could be a problem. (I think that RSP and BSP are likely to be trademarked as well.) I wonder, especially since the TC's focus is on maintenance of the WS-I specs, if it wouldn't be better to keep the same filenames (WP abbreviation) as in WS-I? (The names can be seen by following the links from the "references" at the end of the TC Charter web page [3]) The WS-I files use the camel-case names: BasicProfile ReliableSecureProfile BasicSecurityProfile and the file names would be: These look great to me, although somewhat long... Please let me know if you want to modify the requested WP abbreviations, and which WP abbreviations you would like to use. Best regards, Paul P.S. I'll also update the affiliation for one of the Editors (Abbie) to his current company. [1] Template requests: [2] Naming Directives: [3] WS-BRSP charter links: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-brsp/charter.php#item-7 -- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]