OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

The substantive content of IS 26300 is identical to the ODF 1.0 edition 2 Committee Specification.  There are substantive differences between ODF 1.0 edition 2 CS and the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard.  We should not claim otherwise in the text of our Errata 02.  

Unfortunately, we can only make Errata against the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard (and separately against the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard).

We're OK unless an erratum falls on an area where the two specifications are different. (Section 17.5 is such a case.  In particular, they reference different IETF RFCs.)  This is very screwy and I don't think we have dealt with it very well.

Finally, there is at least one remaining production error in Errata 01 that could be corrected in a cumulative Errata.  

I also think I understand Mary's assumption that Errata documents are cumulative.  According to the current TC procedure, it is permissible to accompany the Errata with a version of the approved standard that has revision marking showing application of the Errata.  It seems to me that such a revision marking should always be possible, whether circulated or not, and has to be against the approved standard (since nothing else has standing for application of Errata).  Consequently, the revision marking must be cumulative and so must the Errata document that the revision marking corresponds to.  

 - Dennis

PS: There is a peculiar value to a cumulative errata for the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard. We will need to transform it selectively into a single Errata document for the OASIS ODF 1.1 Standard and take that to JTC1 SC34 WG6 at some point, possibly during the FPDAM process that amends IS 26300 to align with ODF 1.1.

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org 

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

So as not to prolong the discussion any further - this is a single, cumulative errata document for any OASIS Standard. 

Mary 



On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:06 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> "Dennis E. Hamilton" 

Remember, OASIS has made a commitment to JTC1 to work to maintain 
equivalent specifications in both bodies.  Since JTC1 technical corrigenda 
are individually citable documents, we need to maintain a similar 
structure in OASIS, if we are to fulfil our obligations.  This means that 
we need to be able to point to ODF 1.0  Approved Errata 01, as well as 
point to ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 02, and have some assurance that the 01 
version does not disappear when the 02 version is approved.

Is this going to be a problem?  A cumulative errata document is fine.  But 
depending on how you are using the word "single", I may have a problem 
with what you are saying.

-Rob

Mary McRae 

Hi Rob,

  Nothing ever disappears at OASIS. Each document is always maintained at its unique URI and should be sited there. There should not, however, be separate documents each containing some bit, requiring a user (someone other than JTC1) to have to go to multiple locations to try to get all of the relevant pieces. 

Regards,

Mary



On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:04 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Remember, OASIS has made a commitment to JTC1 to work to maintain 
> equivalent specifications in both bodies.  Since JTC1 technical corrigenda 
> are individually citable documents, we need to maintain a similar 
> structure in OASIS, if we are to fulfil our obligations.  This means that 
> we need to be able to point to ODF 1.0  Approved Errata 01, as well as 
> point to ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 02, and have some assurance that the 01 
> version does not disappear when the 02 version is approved.
> 
> Is this going to be a problem?  A cumulative errata document is fine.  But 
> depending on how you are using the word "single", I may have a problem 
> with what you are saying.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> Mary McRae 

Mary,

True, but won't it be difficult for the OASIS members who are reviewing 
an errata document to separate out the new errata from the old? 
Particularly since they are not members of the TC that prepared it?

Thinking that while there could be a "cumulative" errata document that 
prevents as you say the search for pieces to put together, that there 
could be an errata document that is posted for public review that is 
only the errata for this review. To make it easier for non-TC members to 
understand what is being proposed as errata.

The process guidelines don't prescribe a form for errata documents and I 
think a two format approach would answer the concern about one place for 
all errata and yet allow better use of the time of members for reviewing 
errata posted for public review.

Hope you are at the start of a great week!

Patrick

Mary McRae wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>   Nothing ever disappears at OASIS. Each document is always maintained at its unique URI and should be sited there. There should not, however, be separate documents each containing some bit, requiring a user (someone other than JTC1) to have to go to multiple locations to try to get all of the relevant pieces. 
>
> Regards,
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:04 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>   
>> Remember, OASIS has made a commitment to JTC1 to work to maintain 
>> equivalent specifications in both bodies.  Since JTC1 technical corrigenda 
>> are individually citable documents, we need to maintain a similar 
>> structure in OASIS, if we are to fulfil our obligations.  This means that 
>> we need to be able to point to ODF 1.0  Approved Errata 01, as well as 
>> point to ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 02, and have some assurance that the 01 
>> version does not disappear when the 02 version is approved.
>>
>> Is this going to be a problem?  A cumulative errata document is fine.  But 
>> depending on how you are using the word "single", I may have a problem 
>> with what you are saying.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> Mary McRae 

The way the Security Services and other TCs do this is that every item has a number. Numbers 1-10 are the 1st time out, maybe 11 - 32 the second time, etc. You can always do a change mark to let people know what's different, but you have to think about the usability of the document from an end user perspective. They aren't going to go chasing around multiple documents to figure out what's wrong. 

Mary



On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

> Mary,
> 
> True, but won't it be difficult for the OASIS members who are reviewing an errata document to separate out the new errata from the old? Particularly since they are not members of the TC that prepared it?
> 
> Thinking that while there could be a "cumulative" errata document that prevents as you say the search for pieces to put together, that there could be an errata document that is posted for public review that is only the errata for this review. To make it easier for non-TC members to understand what is being proposed as errata.
> 
> The process guidelines don't prescribe a form for errata documents and I think a two format approach would answer the concern about one place for all errata and yet allow better use of the time of members for reviewing errata posted for public review.
> 
> Hope you are at the start of a great week!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> Mary McRae wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>>  Nothing ever disappears at OASIS. Each document is always maintained at its unique URI and should be sited there. There should not, however, be separate documents each containing some bit, requiring a user (someone other than JTC1) to have to go to multiple locations to try to get all of the relevant pieces. 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mary
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:04 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> Remember, OASIS has made a commitment to JTC1 to work to maintain equivalent specifications in both bodies.  Since JTC1 technical corrigenda are individually citable documents, we need to maintain a similar structure in OASIS, if we are to fulfil our obligations.  This means that we need to be able to point to ODF 1.0  Approved Errata 01, as well as point to ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 02, and have some assurance that the 01 version does not disappear when the 02 version is approved.
>>> 
>>> Is this going to be a problem?  A cumulative errata document is fine.  But depending on how you are using the word "single", I may have a problem with what you are saying.
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>> Mary McRae 

Or what about a sectional-approach?

Section 1: The following corrections were approved by the OASIS ODF TC on 
YYYY-MM-DD

Section 2: The following corrections were approved by the OASIS ODF TC on 
YYYY-MM-DD

.
.
.
etc.
 
Then it is clear in the OASIS review what we are adding.  We agree that we 
do not touch earlier sections and only append new sections.  On the SC34 
side you just promote the most-recent section for the corrigenda.

My overall concern is that I am not convinced that a chronological list of 
editing instructions will always yield the same resulting text as a 
clause-ordered list of editing instructions, especially if we ever have 
single correction item that apply to multiple clauses.  So if the ISO 
corrigenda take a chronological approach to determining the corrected 
text, then it will be hard for us to take any other approach.

-Rob


Patrick Durusau