RE: [ws-rx] Action Item 53: new RDDL docs

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

+1!

But as I indicated... I do believe that
when we closed the action, we also entertained a
motion to accept that was approved by
the TC. 

I whole-heartedly support Paul's suggestion
that closed AIs that result in motions be
tracked as issues. In fact, I would
strongly support that ALL motions undertaken by the
TC aside from purely administrative
issues such as voting on f2f venues, etc. be tracked
as issues so that the TC's decisions
are not lost into a sea of minutes.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
wrote on 01/17/2006 10:33:33 PM:

> > But the TC never formally approved this policy as such.
>  
> If this is true then I would like to suggest
we turn such action 
> items into issues when they are completed with a detailed proposal
> so they are more easily tracked.
>  
> /paulc
>  
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
> 
>  
> 
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] 
> Sent: January 17, 2006 6:22 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Action Item 53: new RDDL docs
>  
>  
> Thanks to Gil, Steve and Chris for working on
the RDDL drafts.
>  
> I suggest that the TC members go through these
drafts before our 
> weekly call (on 1/19).  There are some lurking questions in the
> background that we never clearly nailed down such as --
> a> What is the scope/applicability of RDDL
documents? Do we want to 
> publish RDDL documents for the Committee Drafts also (as opposed to
> waiting until CS)?
>  
> b> What is our namespace versioning policy?
The TC has seen a 
> proposal from Chris/PaulC [1] and there was some subsequent 
> discussion on the mailing list. But the TC never formally approved
> this policy as such.
>  
> c> What is the scope/applicability (WD, CD,
CS) of namespace 
> versioning policy?
>  
> I will add agenda item(s) to go over the above
matters on the coming
> call since some of the related decisions would affect our CD II planning.
>  
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>  
> [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200509/msg00189.html
>  
> 
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 14:13 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] Action Item 53: new RDDL docs
> To fulfill AI 53 attached are the latest drafts
of the RDDL docs for the 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200510 and http://docs.oasis-
> open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200510 namespaces. 
>  
> These documents are basically a merge of the
work Steve Winkler and 
> I did (RDDL 2.0) and some ideas Chris Ferris had (using a micro-
> format to include artifact metadata). While they are not perfect,
I 
> believe they are fleshed out enough to be considered for inclusion
> into the TC's deliverables.
>  
> I think AI 53 can now be closed.
>  
> - g
>  
>