RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

I believe those notes refer to the applicability/scope of the namespace versioning policy that PaulC and Chris came up with. The only instantiation of this policy is in the RDDL documents. I think the steps are as follows:

1.) AI 53: get draft RDDL documents to TC (I'll have these out within the hour).

2.) Create an issue/proposal whatever to accept the RDDL documents as a TC deliverable.

3.) Create an issue to decide on the scope of the namespace versioning policy.

- g

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:57 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz; Yalcinalp, Umit; Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> 
> 
> Here is the cut-paste from the last conf-call minutes at [1]. 
> Please let me know if I am missing something here. If the 
> minutes are incorrect, then we should let Tom know about that.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Gil the OASIS guidelines require it by CS.
> 
> Anish: The TC has never accepted the policy for documents 
> send by the editors.
> 
> Ø  Action: Chairs to put the editors document policy on 
> agenda for next meeting.
> ---------------------------------------- 
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archi
> ves/200601/msg00079.html
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 13:53 PM
> > To: Patil, Sanjay; Yalcinalp, Umit; Anish Karmarkar
> > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > 
> > What do you mean by "document policy"? If the main TC has a problem 
> > with our deliverables (PDF's, schema, WSDL, etc.) then we 
> should talk 
> > about that. Anything related to how the editors do their 
> work is just 
> > an invitation for everyone to mouth off about things that 
> don't effect 
> > them . . .
> > 
> > - g
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:46 PM
> > > To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Gilbert Pilz; Anish Karmarkar
> > > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That reminds me of a possible agenda item for this week's call - 
> > > discuss document policy. Are the editors prepared to present and 
> > > discuss the process/policy you are following. Who is planning to 
> > > take the lead?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sanjay
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Yalcinalp, Umit
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 13:36 PM
> > > > To: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; Anish Karmarkar
> > > > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > > > 
> > > > Sounds like another note for your process document, Gil.
> > > > 
> > > > +1 to use the latest version and please DO document this. 
> > > > 
> > > > --umit
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 12:09 PM
> > > > > To: Patil, Sanjay; Anish Karmarkar
> > > > > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > > > > 
> > > > > Splitting out the schema and wsdl files caused a
> > problem that we
> > > > > should have forseen; since the files are now separate
> > > artifacts they
> > > > > can change independently of one another. For example,
> > > suppose we had
> > > > > wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.odt that included 
> > > > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wd-10.wsdl to make
> > > wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.pdf. Now
> > > > > we make some changes to wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-11.odt and are
> > > preparing to
> > > > > publish it as wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-11.pdf. The WSDL file
> > > hasn't changed
> > > > > so do
> > > > we include
> > > > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wd-10.wsdl or do we create a 
> > > > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-11.wsdl (which is exactly the 
> same as the 
> > > > > previous
> > > > > version) or what? It seems counter-intuitive to me to
> > > create a new
> > > > > version of an artifact that is exactly the same as 
> the previous 
> > > > > version solely for the purpose of trackig another artifact.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was thinking that, since schema and WSDL file changes
> > > are rare, we
> > > > > should just let Kavi take care of all the versions of
> > > > > wsrm*-1.1-*-200510.* and always include "the latest
> > > version" when we
> > > > > generate PDF's for public consumption.
> > > > > 
> > > > > - g
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:14 AM
> > > > > > To: Anish Karmarkar; Gilbert Pilz
> > > > > > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Does anybody feel that we should name the files something
> > > > > along the
> > > > > > > lines:
> > > > > > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wdXX.xsd.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As per the resolution of issue i074 [1], the TC
> > > accepted to name
> > > > > > the final wsdl and xsd files as wsrm-1.1.wsdl and
> > wsrm-1.1.xsd
> > > > > > respectively.
> > > > > > I understand that this is not helpful for naming the
> > > wsdl and xsd
> > > > > > files for WDs and CDs. How about including the
> > > <status>-<revision>
> > > > > > just before the file extension? For example, the CD II
> > > wsdl file
> > > > > > would be named - wsrm-1.1-cd-02.wsdl
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> > > > > > s.xml#i074
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>