RE: [ws-rx-editors] pending issues

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

It turns out that the minutes (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16391/MinutesWS-RX-1-19-2006.doc) were less than helpful. They record that the TC "accepts the proposal as the namespace URI v ersioning policy" but don't say whether this policy should be included in any documents.

 

The RDDL documents already contain the text of the policy. I think this is a good place for this text because these documents are supposed to describe the namespace and one of the important things you may want to know about a namespace it what its life-cycle looks like.

 

I'm going to do the following:

 

1.) check in the RDDL docs to the WS-RX editors page

2.) make sure the RDDL docs are in synch with the resolution to i088

3.) create links from WS-RM and WS-RM Policy to the RDDL doce (really just links to the namespace

 

Let me know how this sounds.

 

- gp

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] pending issues

Seems odd to me since the reader of the doc can't really do anything with that info - its up to the spec authors to decide when to change the namespace and the reader has no control over it.
-Doug

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

02/15/2006 02:27 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [ws-rx-editors] pending issues

My memory of the discussion around i088 is that the policy statement should appear somewhere in the text of both documents. I'll look through the minutes and see if I can piece anything together . . .

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:24 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] pending issues


All,
 From looking thru the list of pending issues the only ones left to complete are:
58 - I've asked Bob for the latest version of the state tables so we can add them
88 - Is there really something that needs to go into the spec for this?  Looks more like 'guidance' than actual spec changes
93 - Haven't had time yet

Does anyone else have the time to look at 93 and 58 (once Bob sends the state table)?
On the positive side none of these really impact the specs very much (at least in terms of the xml) - worst is a namespace change.

thanks
-Doug