On 16 Feb 2005 Paul Grosso wrote:
> > From: Lauren Wood [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 February, 2005 14:11
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: [entity-resolution] minutes from ER TC phone
> > call 20050215
> >
> > On 16 Feb 2005 Paul Grosso wrote:
> > > I'd like us to double check things. I do not believe we need
> > > to certify that we're using a CD. A CD is just put out for
> > > public review and needs no certification.
> > >
> > > I may be confused with the changing status of names in OASIS,
> > > but this does not match what we're doing in the DITA TC, for
> > > example.
> >
> > It's my interpretation of the stuff in
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standard
> >
> > It starts with "A TC may recommend that the Committee Draft be made
> > an OASIS Standard." and then switches language to say that what is
> > submitted is "A formal specification" as well as "Certification by at
> > least three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully
> > using the specification" so from my reading, that means that the
> > certification has to be applied to the CD that we will be submitting,
> > i.e. the one that we just voted on but that is not yet on the site.
> > Nowhere does it say that you can certify you're using a previous
> > version of the CD, nor that some version other than the CD can be
> > made into an OASIS Standard. The CD here is not just any draft ready
> > for review, it's the formal Committee Draft as specified in
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#committee_draft
> > (i.e., the one that used to be called Committee Specification).
>
> So we're certifying the CD as part of the process of submitting
> it to become and OASIS Standard? Is that it?
Yes. In a sense we're jumping the gun since we have to go through
public review first before formally applying for OASIS Standard vote,
but I know that some companies take a long time to get these things
ready, so I wanted to get the ball rolling for those companies (not
Arbortext).
Lauren
