OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wss-m message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wss-m] Best term for relationship between v1.1.1 and v1.1?


  I did much of the editing, and suggested the 'third digit' numbering
scheme; it is what my Company does for 'service packs'.  
  I agree that supersedes is laden with assumptions, but it is also a
claim of authority - that one could/should move 1.1.1 to "take the place
of" v1.1, or "displace in favor of...".

  Words are emotional, but in many ways, this use of the word
"supersede" is correct intellectually, if not emotionally (and
P.C.ness).  "Look here for the truth"  maybe I'm being a bit pompous,
but...we are trying to put a stake in a new ground.

  Arm-wrestle:  would "subsume" be better? I can't say Thesaurus without
  I agree about the IETF stance, but Obsoletes also seems to imply an
incorrectness (true, depending on the version referenced, but it is more
of a consolidation than a correction, though it really incorporates
both), Updates is closer, but this is not a corrigendum or errata, it is
an incorporation of errata - like taking a 'patch' and applying it to a
specific version (not patched). 
  Just losing weight after Fat Tuesday...

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:53 PM
To: WSS-M TC List
Cc: Robin Cover
Subject: [wss-m] Best term for relationship between v1.1.1 and v1.1?

   - questions about X.509 Certificate Token Profile (CSD)
   - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-m/201103/msg00008.html

At the very end of my recent message I wrote (too hastily):

> For "Related work:" in connection with this spec,
> I would plan to say it supersedes the OS and OS Errata,
> while being a part of the multi-part "Web Services
> Security" spec which includes six other parts.

The term "supersedes" may be too strong a claim, or
simply an incorrect term, so I'll invite the WSS-M TC to provide
some appropriate relator term to characterize the
relationship between "Web Services Security X.509
Certificate Token Profile Version 1.1.1" (CSD01) and the
V1.1 predecessor(s).

Since the TC's stated goal is to "to **correct** a number
of currently known errors in the specifications to
prepare for PAS Submission to ISO/IEC JTC 1", it may be
better to say, with respect to the OS (and OS Errata
documents of v1.1)

This V1.1.1 specification corrects:

For some general guidance on use of relator terms in the
cover page section 'Related Work:', see the discussion here:


The most generic is simply:

"This specification is related to:"

If some other very is more descriptive and accurate, you can use it,
as IETF and other SSOs/SDOs do, e.g., reciprocal terms

(Obsoletes xxx) (Obsoleted by xxx) (Updates xxx) (Updated by xxx)



Robin Cover
Interim TC Administrator
OASIS, Director of Information Services
Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
Email: robin@oasis-open.org
Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover
Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
Tel: +1 972-296-1783

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]