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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[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]