[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:39 AM
To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: gilbert.pilz@bea.com; Mary McRae; 'Paul Fremantle'; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
Mary,
updating the first couple of pages isn't that bad - I've already started that. What about the other changes? For example, section 1.1 is now "Terminology" instead of "National Conventions". Or "Normative References" being at section 1.2 instead of at the end of the doc (section 7 in our RM spec)? How much like the template do we need to be for this PR?
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
"Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Sent by: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>02/11/2007 07:53 AM
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
"'Paul Fremantle'" <paul@wso2.com> <gilbert.pilz@bea.com>, <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org> [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
Hi Paul,
I'm asking all TCs to switch to the new template prior to Public Review. Updating the cover page is only a matter of
replacing a few existing out-of-date metdata fields with one or two new ones; you folks already have the URIs you need
for the cover page since they're already in use, and the namespace is declared.
Yes, the RDDL is a necessary component of the PR; otherwise the documents will be hidden from view.
Regards,
Mary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:49 AM
> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Cc: gilbert.pilz@bea.com; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
>
> Mary
>
> Our editors have had a look at the new template and they are
> concerned that switching to the new template will affect the
> PR timing and our vote.
>
> They have suggested the following approach:
> * The main difference between the new template and the old is
> the IPR text.
> * Therefore we add the IPR text to the current document for PR
> * During PR the editors switch to the new template and work
> on the HTML output
> * In addition they fix up the RDDL document during that period
>
> I think this addresses the problems for PR. Firstly, as long
> as the PR doc has the right IPR text the formatting shouldn't
> be an issue.
> Secondly, as I understand it the RDDL isn't a necessary piece
> of the PR.
>
> I have asked the editors to produce you the docs with the
> updated IPR text.
>
> Please let me know if this is acceptable.
>
> Paul
>
> Mary McRae wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I'm afraid that there's some work to be done on the
> package before
> > it can be sent out for public review. Since the documents
> will need to
> > be changed, I'm going to ask you to switch to the new
> templates as well, which satisfy the Naming Guidelines and
> Metadata policy that was adopted last fall.
> >
> > The template home page is here:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/
> > and you should be using the template for the 4-15-2005 IPR notices:
> >
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASISSpecificationTemplateV3.0.do
> > t (Word) or
> >
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASISSpecificationTemplateV3.0.ot
> > t (OO)
> >
> > The user guide
> >
> (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASIS_Specification_Temp
> late_Guidelines.html) hopefully does a good job of explaining
> what information goes where as well as links to the specific
> sections of the policy documents.
> >
> > Robin and I are also discussing how to handle the new/old
> namespace -
> > including noting the previous namespace in the current RDDL and
> > potentially making some note in the older one (200608). As
> I'm just reviewing this on Sat AM, I don't anticipate being
> able to resolve those questions until early next week but
> will get back to the TC as soon as possible.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > WS-Reliable Messaging (wsrm)
> > Specification:
> > In general:
> > Update cover page, Status and Notice section to correspond to the
> > templates noted above. This includes moving the Notice
> section from the rear of the document to the front.
> >
> > 1. The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> > acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> > 2. The wsdl does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> > 3. Acknowledgements:
> > Christopher Ferris-Editor(BM) -- (should be IBM?)
> >
> > DIFF (PDF file)
> > There are two diff files in the zip; I need a single diff file that
> > compares the version previously submitted for PR
> > (200608) with the current document.
> >
> > RDDL
> > *NOTE There should be some mention of the previous
> namespace; there is
> > also discussion underway about what information should be
> placed at the previous (200608) namespace indicating that
> it's been superceded.
> >
> > Schema
> > The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > WSDL
> > The wsdl does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> > WS-MakeConnection (wsmc)
> > Specification:
> > In general:
> > Update cover page, Status and Notice section to correspond to the
> > templates noted above. This includes moving the Notice
> section from the rear of the document to the front.
> >
> > Specifics:
> > 1. This is the first CD of this document and should be marked
> > accordingly (Committee Draft 01) 2. Revision history must note that
> > this document began with extracted section(s) from WSRM and
> identify those section(s). Alternatively, this is a new
> document and subject to a 60-day public review.
> > 3. The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> > acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > RDDL
> > 1. This is the first CD of this document and should be marked
> > accordingly (revision 01)
> >
> > Schema
> > The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > WSDL
> > The wsdl does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > DIFF
> > For some reason there's a diff file in this directory; this
> is the first instance of this document.
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> > WS-RM Policy (wsrmp)
> > Specification:
> > In general:
> > Update cover page, Status and Notice section to correspond to the
> > templates noted above. This includes moving the Notice
> section from the rear of the document to the front.
> >
> > 1.The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> > acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > DIFF (PDF file)
> > There are two diff files in the zip; I need a single diff file that
> > compares the version previously submitted for PR
> > (200608) with the current document.
> >
> > RDDL
> > *NOTE There should be some mention of the previous
> namespace; there is
> > also discussion underway about what information should be
> placed at the previous (200608) namespace indicating that
> it's been superceded.
> >
> > Schema
> > The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > I'll try to turn new files around as quickly as possible
> but can make no promises beyond the stated 5 business day SLA.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:43 PM
> >> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> >> Cc: gilbert.pilz@bea.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org;
> >> marypmcrae@gmail.com
> >> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >> The basic situation is that 22286 has more beautiful HTML and
> >> 22268 has the images in it.
> >>
> >> I propose that we go with 22268 for PR (since it is more
> accurate if
> >> less beautiful) and that in the meantime the editors will
> prepare a
> >> beautified version of the HTML that will be the basis of our CS.
> >>
> >> Please remember to include our HTML disclaimer!
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mary McRae wrote:
> >>> So I should use this one (22286) rather than 22268?
> >>>
> >>> m
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: gilbert.pilz@bea.com [mailto:gilbert.pilz@bea.com]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:16 PM
> >>>> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Cc: marypmcrae@gmail.com
> >>>> Subject: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
> >>>>
> >>>> Replaced HTML versions with Marc Goodner's better HTML files.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Gilbert Pilz
> >>>>
> >>>> The document revision named ws-rx_cd05.zip has been submitted by
> >>>> Gilbert Pilz to the OASIS Web Services Reliable Exchange
> >>>> (WS-RX) TC document repository. This document is revision #1 of
> >>>> ws-rx_cd05.zip.
> >>>>
> >>>> Document Description:
> >>>> Complete WS-RX CD05 package in proper directory
> structure and RDDL
> >>>> files.
> >>>> Replaced HTML versions with Marc Goodner's better HTML files.
> >>>>
> >>>> View Document Details:
> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/document.ph
> >>>> p?document_id=22286
> >>>>
> >>>> Download Document:
> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
> >>>> p/22286/ws-rx_cd05.zip
> >>>>
> >>>> Revision:
> >>>> This document is revision #1 of ws-rx_cd05.zip. The
> >> document details
> >>>> page referenced above will show the complete revision history.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email
> >>>> application may be breaking the link into two pieces.
> >>>> You may be able to copy and paste the entire link
> address into the
> >>>> address field of your web browser.
> >>>>
> >>>> -OASIS Open Administration
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Paul Fremantle
> >> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> >> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >>
> >> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> >> paul@wso2.com
> >> (646) 290 8050
> >>
> >> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]