RE: [xri-editors] XRI Primer status question

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

Mary,

Thank you very much for the clarification. We discussed this on the XRI
Editor's call this morning and agreed that: a) our intention is for the XRI
2.0 specifications to be a voting package as a set, with four documents in
the set (XRI Syntax, XRI Resolution, XRI Metadata, and XRI Primer), and b)
we would follow your recommendations below for the XRI Primer, i.e., approve
it as a versioned document as part of the set, but designate it as
non-normative for reference only.

So now all we need to know is how we should "package" the four documents in
the XRI 2.0 suite. Do we need to add one "master" document that references
the other 4, or can we designate one of the four (preferable XRI Syntax,
since it is the "base" or "core" spec) to be the master.

If there is another OASIS spec that you feel we should model in this
respect, let us know.

Best,

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:33 PM
To: 'Drummond Reed'; 'James Bryce Clark'
Cc: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRI Primer status question

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_workg
roup.php.