Re: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions

[Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>]

That was my recollection too. Certainly that's what I updated the 
specification to reflect.

Mark.


Colleen Evans wrote:
>
> Didn’t the TC already agree to a convention in relation to issue 15? 
> From the minutes at [1] I thought we agreed to accept my proposal 
> referenced in the minutes:
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Excerpt from the minutes:
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Ian: Colleen's proposal is to keep the hyphen. It is at 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-tx/200602/msg00007.html
>
> Eric: The proposal is to keep the hyphen.
>
> Do we have consensus? Is there any objection to keeping the hyphen?
>
> Ram Jeyaraman: There are a couple of documents which need reflect the 
> resolution of this issue.
>
> Colleen: We can follow what other committees like RX are doing. There 
> is a link to what they are doing, in my proposal.
>
> Ian: We also need to supply values for the yyyy/mm in the namespace. 
> We should use 2006/03, based on the date we expect the CD or CDs to be 
> approved. It is not a critical date; we just need to establish it.
>
> Ian: Move to adopt the versioning policy including the WS-RX policy.
>
> Ram: Second.
>
> Monica: Can someone explain the WS-RX model for versioning?
>
> Ian: The pointer is 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i088
>
> Ram: The policy states that the namespace will not change arbitrarily. 
> It will change only when a published CD or specification results in a 
> non-backwardly compatible namespace, and defines the changes which are 
> considered not to be backwardly compatible.
>
> Alastair: It should say either CD or specification changes.
>
> Eric: Yes, that is included.
>
> Martin: I would like to feed our decision back to the ASIS review.
>
> ACTION: Chairs to inform ASIS that we are not following the guideline 
> with respect to hyphens.
>
> Eric: Any objections to passing the proposal, including the WS-RX policy?
>
> No objections noted.
>
> Proposal for resolution of issue 15 has passed.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Thanks,
>
> Colleen
>
> [1] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/16930/WS-TX_Minutes_2006_02_23.htm
>
> [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-tx/200602/msg00007.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Thomas Freund [mailto:tjfreund@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 03, 2006 6:13 AM
> *To:* Ian Robinson
> *Cc:* Andrew Wilkinson3; Max Feingold; ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
>
> I opt for using #1 (as per Ian's suggestion & using the 2006/03 date) 
> ... just out of curiosity why is it that that the namespace slightly 
> different between the two ... i.e. #1 is fine with just "wscoor" where 
> #2 is "wstx-wscoor" (where everthing prepending that portion is the same)
>
> Regards
> Tom
> Inactive hide details for Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>Ian 
> Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>
>
> *Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>*
>
> 03/03/2006 04:33 AM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
>
> Andrew Wilkinson3 <awilkinson@uk.ibm.com>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
>
> "Max Feingold" <Max.Feingold@microsoft.com>, Thomas 
> Freund/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
>
> RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With regard to cross-references between the specs (e.g a [WSCOOR] ref in
> WS-AT) there are 2 choices:
> 1. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wscoor/2006/03, which will resolve 
> to a
> RDDL doc
> 2. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf which
> will resolve to the specification document itself
>
> #1 above is fairly common practice and more consistent with the existing
> references.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Robinson
> STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
> IBM Hursley Lab, UK
> ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
>
>
>
> Andrew
> Wilkinson3/UK/IBM
> @IBMGB To
> "Max Feingold"
> 03/03/2006 10:14 <Max.Feingold@microsoft.com>,
> "Thomas Freund"
> <tjfreund@us.ibm.com>
> cc
> ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
> RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors
> instructions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks both.
>
> I'll update the reference to WSCOOR too.
>
> I had opted for a date of 2006/03 per Ian's recommendation on last week's
> telecon:
>
> "We also need to supply values for the yyyy/mm in the namespace. We
> should use 2006/03, based on the date we expect the CD or CDs to be
> approved." -
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/16930/WS-TX_Minutes_2006_02_23.htm
>
>
> So, just for the sake of clarity, that makes the three namespaces:
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wscoor/2006/03
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wsat/2006/03
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wsba/2006/03
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> "Max Feingold" <Max.Feingold@microsoft.com>
> 02/03/2006 20:19
>
> To
> "Thomas Freund" <tjfreund@us.ibm.com>,
> <ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy:
>
> My intention for WS-C was to update all references in the text, as Tom
> indicates.
>
> From: Thomas Freund [mailto:tjfreund@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thu 3/2/2006 10:35 AM
> To: ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
>
> Andrew,
>
> I had intended to do a global change (including the refs --- and several
> additional lines that seem to have been missed in the issue)
>
> Tom
> Andrew Wilkinson3 <awilkinson@uk.ibm.com>
>
>
> Andrew Wilkinson3 <awilkinson@uk.ibm.com>
> 03/02/2006 11:42 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
> ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> cc
>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
>
>
>
>
>
> Max, Tom
>
> In the interests of consistency how far do you plan to go with the changes
>
> for WS-Coor and WS-BA for issue 15?
>
> I intend to update AT to describe coor with a namespace of
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wscoor/2006/03. At the moment I don't
> intend to update the non-normative WSCOOR reference to refer to the new
> specification; changing the list of authors and publication date etc. Does
>
> this seem reasonable - I don't feel strongly about this, just that it
> would be good for all 3 specs to be updated similarly.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> 02/03/2006 16:14
>
> To
> ws-tx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One further thing.
> As a general rule it would help the TC if each WD had cumulative
> change-tracking since the last approved draft (CD or PR). We have no
> approved draft yet; the base draft with respect to which changes should be
> tracked prior to our first CDs is the first drafts that used the OASIS
> templates. In this case, please just do your best; if you haven't been
> tracking changes in this way so far then just start doing so from now.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Robinson
> STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
> IBM Hursley Lab, UK
> ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
> ----- Forwarded by Ian Robinson/UK/IBM on 02/03/2006 16:08 -----
>
> Ian
> Robinson/UK/IBM
> To
>
> 02/03/2006 16:02 wstx-editors
> cc
>
>
> Subject
>
> Editors instructions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Editors,
>
> Per the discussion on the telecon last week, please can you get updated
> drafts to the TC by EOD Tues 7 March.
>
> Please use the following conventions to ensure consistency:
>
> On the front page of each spec, please ensure you use the appropriate "doc
> identifier", "location" and "Technical committee" name and correct form of
> statustext.
>
> 1. Doc identifier value (this value should be on the line following
> "Document Identifier" and in the page footer)
> wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec-wd-03
> wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-03
> wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-03
>
> 2. Location value:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf
>
> 3. Technical committee
> OASIS WS-TX TC
> (Note upper case WS-TX)
>
> 4. Status.
> The first line of the status section should state:
> This document is published by the WS-TX TC as a ?working draft".
>
> Please use a file name that is the doc identifier with a ".doc" file
> extension e.g wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-03.doc
> We don't need to generate new PDFs yet. We will produce PDFs whenever the
> TC adopts a new CD.
>
> The issues that we want to incorporate in these drafts are listed below by
> spec.
>
> WS-Coordination
>
> Issues: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, (18-21)
>
> WS-AtomicTransaction
>
> Issues: 15, 17
>
> WS-BusinessActivity
>
> Issues: 7, 15, 17,
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>