[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03
Drummond et al, Is this an authoritative version just for this stage of the process or can we change once the review has finished? And just a question would HTML be an option, because then it could be one source (on a server) which was edited and not distributed, and wouldn't suffer from versioning or viewing issues? Nika On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: > Robin, > > I have to admit I find this to be an overwhelming argument in favor of > designating the editable source as the authoritative version. That > doesn't > mean we shouldn't proof the other outputs to make sure they are > accurate, > but in the unlikely edge case of a disagreement, using the source > from which > we actually created the conversion seems like the only safe option. > > Gabe, John: do you agree? And does anyone else object? > > =Drummond > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:34 PM >> To: Drummond Reed >> Cc: 'Gabe Wachob'; Mary McRae; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: RE: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution >> Committee Draft 03 >> >>> it seems the me the SAFEST position to take is declare our editable >> source >>> as the authoritative version >> >> For the moment (until I hear someone argue otherwise), I also >> believe the >> editable source would be the format most likely to represent the >> intent >> of the authors/editors -- who presumably will have verified the >> integrity >> and fidelity of the text most closely in the editable source format. >> While conversion errors/infelicities should be minimal, in case some >> discrepancy is ultimately identified, it would be most useful to have >> the authoritative version embodied in the most-studied (and original >> "source") document -- not in a derivative format where the >> discrepancy >> [error] was initially not spotted. In that case, the TC would have >> the >> exquisite delight of certifying that a demonstrable (unintentioned >> textual) error is in fact "the authoritative version." Now nice. >> >> What are the chances that a derived text is "correct" and the >> original >> source version "incorrect"? >> >> -rcc >> >> Robin Cover >> OASIS, Chief Information Architect >> Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink >> http://xml.coverpages.org/ >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Drummond Reed wrote: >> >>> I'm also cool with PDF as long as we check the conversion (we need >>> to >>> anyway). But let me turn this back into a question to Mary: what are >> other >>> TCs doing? Are they electing to use their editable source as the >>> authoritative file, or one of the other two formats? >>> >>> >>> >>> And in the end, does it really matter that much, i.e., aren't all >> outputs >>> supposed to be identical (and shouldn't they be proofed for that >> purpose)? >>> However, there is always the potential for errors that won't get >>> caught, >> so >>> it seems the me the SAFEST position to take is declare our editable >> source >>> as the authoritative version. >>> >>> >>> >>> But I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll defer to Mary's >>> recommendation. >>> >>> >>> >>> =Drummond >>> >>> >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> From: gwachob@gmail.com [mailto:gwachob@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gabe >> Wachob >>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:10 PM >>> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org >>> Cc: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution >>> Committee >>> Draft 03 >>> >>> >>> >>> But we can check this post-conversion, right? >>> >>> So if we could be careful to make sure the conversion was correct, I >> would >>> still vote for PDF... after all it is supposed to be *portable* ;) >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Gabe, >>> >>> >>> >>> The problem is that sometimes characters don't convert properly in >>> PDF >>> files - I've had several occasions where graphics are misplaced or >> schemas >>> or xml examples are corrupted with bogus symbols. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> >>> From: gwachob@gmail.com [mailto:gwachob@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gabe >> Wachob >>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:56 PM >>> To: Drummond Reed >>> Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee >>> Draft >> 03 >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd prefer PDF... since its less likely to have any issues with >>> readers, >>> version skew, etc. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Drummond Reed >> <drummond.reed@cordance.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Mary, >>> >>> Yes, I saw that when reviewing the message you sent out about the >>> recent >>> revisions to the TC process, and it makes sense to me. >>> >>> Since we have always used Word as our editable source, I think it >>> makes >> the >>> most sense to declare that as authoritative. >>> >>> Gabe or anyone else: do you see any reason not to declare the Word >> version >>> our authoritative version? >>> >>> =Drummond >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary >>>> McRae >>>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:43 AM >>>> To: 'Drummond Reed' >>>> Cc: gwachob@gmail.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >>> >>>> Subject: RE: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee >> Draft >>>> 03 >>>> >>>> Hi Drummond, >>>> >>>> I just need one more thing. The new TC Process (effective 1 March >> 2008) >>>> requires the TC to declare one of the 3 versions as authoritative >> (word, >>>> html or >>>> pdf). >>>> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-02-05.php#specQuality >>>> (5th para) >>>> >>>> Just let me know which one. The intent is in the case of >>>> discrepancy >> due >>>> to >>>> conversions or export routines, etc. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Mary >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] >>>>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 3:34 PM >>>>> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org >>>>> Cc: gwachob@gmail.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> Subject: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee >>>>> Draft >> 03 >>>>> >>>>> Mary, >>>>> >>>>> I am pleased to say the vote to approve XRI Resolution 2.0 >>>>> Committee >>>> Draft >>>>> 03 and submit it for a 15-day Public Review closed last night >>>>> and it >>>> passed >>>>> unanimously, with 18 of 21 voting members voting. A copy of the >>>>> ballot >>>>> closure notice is included below. >>>>> >>>>> Per my conversation with you, following are the authoritative >>>>> links >> you >>>>> need >>>>> for the Public Review documents: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Normative Word version of the specification on which we held >>>>> the >> vote >>>>> (XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 04 Revision 04): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27431/xri- >> resolution- >>>>> V2.0- >>>>> cd-02-rv-04.doc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) Normative RelaxNG files referenced from pages 23 and Appendix >>>>> B of >>>> the >>>>> spec. >>>>> >>>>> xrds.rnc >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27422/ >>>>> xrds.rnc >>>>> >>>>> xrd.rnc >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27421/xrd.rnc >>>>> >>>>> (Note that the pointers in the OASIS repositories to the latest >> version >>>> of >>>>> these files, referenced on lines 387 and 388 of the spec, will >>>>> need to >>>> be >>>>> updated too.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3) Per the comment on line 3772 in Appendix C, the link to the >>>>> latest >>>>> xrd.xsd file needs to be changed to: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27430/xrd- >> v2.0.xsd >>>>> >>>>> (Note that the xrds.xsd file did not change.) >>>>> >>>>> 4) Lastly, since we will also be submitting XRI Syntax 2.0 >>>>> Committee >>>>> Specification for the OASIS Standard vote, the authoritative >>>>> link to >> the >>>>> normative Word document for this specification is: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.oasis- >> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/download.php/15375/xri- >>>>> synt >>>>> ax-V2.0-cs.doc >>>>> >>>>> Besides the need to store this document in the docs.oasis-open.org >>>>> repository and update the links in its front matter to reflect >>>>> this, >> we >>>>> also >>>>> need to update the reference to this document on line 204 of XRI >>>> Resolution >>>>> 2.0 Committee Draft 03. >>>>> >>>>> Please call or email me if you have any questions about this. We >>>>> look >>>>> forward very much to conducting the second Public Review of XRI >>>> Resolution >>>>> 2.0. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> =Drummond >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> [mailto:workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:01 PM >>>>> To: drummond.reed@cordance.net >>>>> Subject: Groups - oasis - Ballot "XRI Resolution Committee Draft >>>>> 03" >> has >>>>> closed >>>>> >>>>> OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC member, >>>>> >>>>> A ballot presented to OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) >>>>> TC >> has >>>>> closed. >>>>> The text of this closed ballot is as follows: >>>>> --- >>>>> "XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03" >>>>> Does the committee approve the XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee >>>>> Draft 02 >>>>> Revision 04 specification (URI below) as a Committee Draft? If >>>>> yes, >> does >>>>> the >>>>> TC also agree to submit the specification for Public Review? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27432/xri- >> resolution- >>>>> V2.0- >>>>> cd-02-rv-04.pdf >>>>> >>>>> This ballot requires a Full Majority Vote to Pass. >>>>> >>>>> - Yes >>>>> - No >>>>> - Abstain >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Quick Summary of Voting Results: >>>>> - Yes received 18 Votes >>>>> - No received 0 Votes >>>>> - Abstain received 0 Votes >>>>> >>>>> 18 of 21 eligible voters cast their vote before the deadline. >>>>> >>>>> Voting results for all closed ballots are available on the xri >>>>> eVote >>>>> Archive >>>>> at: >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/ >>>>> ballot_archive.php >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> OASIS Open Administration >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs > in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]