MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
oasis-member-discuss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Some +1's for the comments on ASIS todate
Marc -
Thanks for your comments; I've responded already to many of the
comments you reference.
I think Ken's statement that you cite ("...OASIS has to make the
process of writing specifications easier...") is one with which ALL of
us with limited time can agree. Other considerations, such as attaching
metadata to artifacts, will ease search, retrieval, and mangement, and
also improve efficiency of our work in OASIS.
bill cox
Marc Goodner wrote:
As I only just
subscribed to this list and can not reply
to what I see in the archives (seems this is a long lamented
shortcoming of the
mail archives here) I’ll collect my +1’s here while I collect my
own feedback.
To Norm’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00004.html
“However, I don't think
the document is ready for
adoption. There are simply far to many places where it's unclear or
underspecified.”
I couldn’t agree more
with this statement. His concerns
about the involvement of the TC Administrator will be echoed in my own
comments. His line numbered comments are very thorough and I don’t see
any that leap out at me as something I disagree with. In fact I think
his
comments here are good enough I question why I would go through the
effort to
reproduce a less complete version of his list.
To Chris’ mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00002.html
Again, as in Norm’s
mail I question what more I can
add to this discussion. +1. In particular the comments regarding RDDL
and
namespaces, there is no reason every TC should have to go through the
same
startup costs around this and the guidance provided in the ASIS is of
no substantive
help. I don’t understand why so much time was spent on URN (with notes
that seem wholly inappropriate about wanting to change the referenced
RFCs) and
almost no attention was given to namespaces.
The URN RFCS are incomplete and ambiguous; the sections describe how to
use those RFCs with OASIS artifacts. There are also promises in the
RFCs (like the URN resolution service) that were never done, and should
be deprecated in some manner.
The previous public review of these guidelines (in the archives of
oasis-member-discuss) had a number of comments on the then-requirement
for RDDL; after listening to the negative comments the RDDL requirement
was dropped. These public discussions/reviews can, I hope, drive us
toward a useful set of policies that will help OASIS move to a
stronger set of document management tools, while allowing those of us
still in the stone age to find unambiguous, non-conflicting names for
artifacts.
Also I agree that the
products
should be beneath the TC subtree, doing otherwise only invites naming
collisions. I also don’t understand how the relationship of the
products
to the relevant TC would be clear to the public in such a scheme.
To Ian’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00003.html
Yes, a big +1. We had
the same problem on the RX call this
week. I can’t wait to have the discussion in the SX TC this week which
will unfortunately be too late for comments to come in from that TC.
The issues have been raised.
To G. Ken Holman’s
mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-discuss/200602/msg00005.html
Another big +1,
especially to this “I believe OASIS
has to make the process of writing specifications *easier* in order to
help
people with limited time involved in the already lengthy process of
writing to
produce something that can be used. Therefore, the burden should be
focused to accomplish the goal and not so broad as to deter
contributions.”
Exactly.
Right now I don’t think
ASIS is a step in the right
direction to accomplish this. It may be that we need all of this
metadata, but
for now this document only worries me about complicating my
participation in a
TC and increasing my work in any editorial tasks I might volunteer for.
I think
the goal for ASIS should be to get the right metadata *and* reduce the work load on
those who
volunteer for editorial tasks within a TC.
The metadata in section 4 (required metadata) is ALREADY being provided
via the document templates you're using in your respective TCs. I
would quote Moliere, but it's getting late...
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]