[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
I guess you can ignore that last message. It seems I didn't update my mail quick enough. On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Nika Jones wrote: > 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 >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]