No one has to pay for ISO version of OData :-) On the top of the page where the price of 198 SFR is advertised (
https://www.iso.org/standard/69208.html ) one finds "The electronic version of this International Standard can be downloaded from the ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force (ITTF) web site" on the to me very interesting freely available standards page
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html one finds the links to the OData (Protocol, URLConventions, CSDL Schema) i.e. core and OData JSON Format. the first is:
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c069208_ISO_IEC_20802-1_2016.zip Then only one acceptance of license - I think - separates one from the zip file. All the best, Stefan. Am 16.01.18 um 20:23 schrieb Larry Golding (Comcast): > I?ve now read the various references on keyword usage. I also examined > OData v4.0 Part 1 Protocol > <
http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/odata-v4.0-part1-protocol.doc > > (the OASIS standard), as Stefan suggested. Here?s what I know so far: > > > > 1. RFC 2119/RFC 8174 /require/ normative keywords to be in upper case. > ISO Directives Part 2 /permits/ normative keywords to be upper case. > So if you want to be both OASIS-conformant and ISO-ready, use upper > case. We already do that. > > 2. RFC 2119 allows MUST as a synonym for SHALL. ISO Directives Part 2 > does not allow MUST. So /it seems/ that if we want to be ISO-ready, > we should use SHALL everywhere (but hold on! I?m not done yet?) > > 3. The OASIS keyword guidelines > <
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/keyword-guidelines > > FAQ say this: > > *As an editor, why would I use ISO keywords instead of RFC in > a specification? > * > If you are planning on submitting an OASIS TC Specification or > Standard to ISO/IEC, you can use [RFC 2119] keywords on a first > submission.^4 > <
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/keyword-guidelines#sdfootnote4sym > However, > on subsequent submissions, you will be required to conform to > [ISO/IEC Directives], which will require use of ISO keywords. > > So again, /it seems/ that if we want to be ISO-ready, we should use > SHALL everywhere, because otherwise ISO will make us change it. > > 4. The OData v4.0 Part 1 Protocol > <
http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/odata-v4.0-part1-protocol.doc > > (the OASIS standard) uses MUST everywhere. > > *BUT!* > > 5. In an earlier thread on this topic, Stefan wrote: > > as OASIS is a public accepted submitter to ISO and with OData as an > example, we had no trouble after we made the OASIS Standard stage, > to also submit unchanged to ISO, fill in a form, where OASIS stated, > that the TC would continue to work on future versions, and then we > waited for the many months election period and the bunch of OData > standards was concat and wrapped as i[s] and is now an ISO standard - > for free. > > That makes it sound like we did /not/ have to change to ISO > keywords, which contradicts what the OASIS keyword guidelines FAQ says. > > > > So *Chet*, could you please clarify? /Are/ the ISO and OASIS versions of > the OData standard identical ? do they both use RFC 2119 keywords? > [*NOTE*: I?d rather not have to buy a copy of the ISO standard to find > the answer!] Is the OASIS keyword guidelines FAQ wrong, or out of date, > on this point? > > > > Thanks for your help! > > Larry >