RE: [xri-editors] XRI Primer status question

["Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

Great questions, Drummond!

I wish we had a rules-based answer. As far as the Primer is concerned, I would suggest that:
A) it gets approved by the TC and assigned a version number
B) it is incorporated into the voting package as a non-normative document for reference only. It isn't part of the standard per se,
but it could be useful to a voting representative who is trying to figure out exactly what XRI 2.0 is.

As to the first question, are the three documents inter-dependent? If the answer is yes, you could think of the three documents as a
set; they could also be three parts within a single document. If they are separate and distinct and someone could implement syntax
without metadata, then my personal opinion would be that you have separate standards: XRI-Syntax, XRI-Metadata, and XRI-Resolution.
That would allow each one to take on a life of their own.

I'm including Jamie on this reply just in case I've misinterpreted something and/or has a different opinion.

Regards,

Mary


---------------------------------------------------
Mary P McRae
OASIS 
Manager of TC Administration
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org  
web: www.oasis-open.org 
phone: 603.232.9090
cell: 603.557.7985

-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:02 PM
To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; 'James Bryce Clark'
Cc: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri-editors] XRI Primer status question

Mary and Jamie,

Now that we've got the schedule straight, another question has come up that we'd love to get an answer to before the XRI Editor's SC
call tomorrow at 10am Pacific.

We're planning a total of 4 documents in the XRI 2.0 suite: Syntax, Resolution, Metadata, and a Primer. The first three are
normative, but the Primer is not.

The reason for the Primer is that we've found through experience that a non-normative introduction to XRIs is extremely helpful in
having folks understand XRI architecture and its uses. However the Primer is entirely non-normative - only the other 3 XRI
specifications are normative.

So, the question is: is there any reason that the Primer should be part of the official normative specification package put up for
OASIS review and vote? And if not (as we assume), how should it be referenced by the other 3 documents?

Also, how should the other 3 documents be packaged? With XRI 1.0 we only had one spec, so we haven't had to deal with multi-document
spec packaging yet.

Thanks for your guidance,

=Drummond 



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/members/leave_workgroup.php.