One comment - there are multiple versions of RDDL and in
fact, from what this outsider can tell, RDDL is being "superseded" by efforts at
the W3C in the GRDDL effort.
In fact, RDDL is no formal standard (though it does seem to
be attractive as somewhat of a de facto standard). The version published at www.rddl.org is actually not the latest proposal
for RDDL, but seems to be the one that has gotten the more traction.
Does OASIS care about the status of RDDL if it is going to
mandate its use? I actually like the concept of prodding TC's to publish RDDL
documents, but I'd hate to be having to track a moving
target....
-Gabe
From: William Cox [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Marc
Goodner
Cc: Christopher B Ferris; James Bryce Clark;
Subject:
[oasis-member-discuss] Re: RDDL thread
Thanks, all, for the discussion on RDDL; the comments received were
generally "why RDDL" and "why isn't this optional." In removing the
REQUIREMENT and not changing it to a SHOULD we might have thrown the baby out
with the bath...
I've changed the subject to "RDDL thread" so we can
view these more easily.
There's been more productive discussion on this
topic in the past 72 hours than in the previous review. Please, however,
resist the urge to pile on... :-)
bill cox
Marc Goodner
wrote:
Regarding RDDL,
I agree with Chris’ comments below particularly that anyone who thinks it
isn’t browser accessible doesn’t understand it. RDDL is simply metadata in
an html file. Probably even better than the link Chris provided below is a
link to the actual namespace for the CD2 of WSRM and WSRM Policy so you can
see RDDL in action (in your browser).
WSRM http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200510/
WSRM Policy http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200510/
If someone were
to look at the CD for either one of those specs, that is the namespace they
would find there. You can see how the information provided there is much
better than simply a directory listing. I do not understand why we would not
want to pursue this in a way that could be consistently applied across the
organization.
Furthermore I
have gone back and looked at the public comments to this list and see no
suggestions that RDDL should not be used. I saw requests for more guidance
on how to use it and that it should be optional. To simply remove it does
not address the substance of the comments or assist TCs that do want to use
it.
Marc
Goodner
Technical
Diplomat
Microsoft
Corporation
Tel: (425)
703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
From:
Christopher B Ferris [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February
28, 2006 5:31 AM
To:
William Cox
Cc: James Bryce
Clark;
Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Re:
[members] Membership and Public Review of OASIS Artifact Standard
Identification Scheme for Metadata
Bill,
Some further commentary.
Due to the way in which Notes will mangle the text, I have prefixed your
comments with WC:
line 350 - what does
"associated" mean? How is such an association effected? I am associated with
the TAB
by virtue of being an
alumnus. However, I am not IN the TAB.
WC: The expression
is covered elsewhere; see for example lines 501-503 (XHTML, etc), 509-511
(significant comments),
WC: 517-518 (already done in document
templates), and 525-526. In most
WC: of these the association is
"included in the cover page or meta tags."
My point was
that the use of the term "associated" was not clear. Maybe, what is called
for is a section unto itself
that
explicitly states the permissable/recommended means by which metadata may be
"associated" with an
artifact and any time the
term "associated" is used, make a reference to that section.
WC: The
templates were modified some time ago; if you're using the 4/15/05 IPR
statement template you're providing pretty much the full set of metadata.
If that is the case, then I
think that the ASIS should be changed to reflect this fact, rather than to
suggest that it SHALL be done.
line 492 -
states:
The relevant required metadata for an artifact MUST be maintained at
the default index page for the http scheme URI for each product and
productVersion to facilitate search and retrieval.
WC:
Take a look at the spreadsheet of comments and resolutions from the previous
review. There was a lot of
WC: complaint about RDDL, based on
standardization status (not much) and preference to have an index.html
WC: or one of the other default HTML pages. My thought is that a web
browser-presentable document is important,
WC: and that OASIS should
provide a template. Again, the first reviewers rejected RDDL pretty
consistently.
What is clear to me, at
least from the statement above: "and preference to have an
index.html" is that those who
made
such comments don't know
what they are talking about. How is "and preference to have an
index.html" somehow
inconsistent with using
RDDL in an index.html page? Further: "My thought is that a web
browser-presentable document is
important, " How is use
of RDDL inconsistent with a browser-presentable document? Clearly, it is
not. Check out the
proposal that is working
its way through the WS-RX TC [1]. It may not be perfect, but it seems to
satisfy the requirements
nicely.
Finally, with regards to
the "standardization status", I think that is a red herring. A standard does
not value yield value
simply by virtue of its
status (although many would claim that to be the case). What makes a
standard valuable is
how broadly it is adopted.
A common convention can become a de facto standard simply because it is
broadly
adopted. "RSS" is such an
example. While there may be a few flavors kicking around, and only one form
of "RSS"
is a true standard (IETF's
ATOM) sanctioned by an SDO, the various flavors have yielded significant
value by
virtue of the fact that the
many RSS feed readers have done a pretty good (not perfect) job of
supporting them all.
What form must
this take? A RDDL document? I guess I am a little confused as there seems to
be no guidance as to how the metadata is to be captured in the
"index.html" page. What
does this page look like? Does it then provide links to the various forms of
the document that can be retrieved? Why is so little of the
"Required Metadata"
that MUST be "associated" with the artifacts included in this "index.html"
page's <meta/> tags? Why wouldn't the metadata also be
exposed visibly on this
page?
WC: For each artifact?
No. Check out
the WS-RX RDDL example [1]. It supports multiple links and provides a formal
way of "associating" the relevant
metadata that
is both human and machine consumable. IMO, that satisfies the
requirements.
Thus, the specific lifetime
of a URN is FOREVER. Period. Anything else is an abomination of the whole
concept of a URN, regardless
of its
purpose.
WC: "persistent" doesn't mean "eternal." The
resolvability of namespace URIs in general seems to create much
WC: heat
(and a little light); the purpose of these "temp URNs" is to reserve URN
space for those groups that
WC: consistently use URNs. If namespace URIs
aren't resolvable either, that creates a problem for having
WC:
something browsable at the namespace URI...
What part of
"persistent" [2] is not clear?
per·sis·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-sstnt, -zs-)
adj.
1.
Refusing to give up or let go; persevering obstinately.
2.
Insistently repetitive or continuous: a persistent ringing of the telephone.
3.
Existing or remaining in the same state for an
indefinitely long time; enduring: persistent rumors; a persistent
infection.
Nothing is eternal. Maybe I
was a bit overboard with FOREVER, but any notion of "temporary URNs" is
completely
inconsistent with the whole
premise of URNs.
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200601/msg00104.html
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=persistent
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM,
Software Group Standards Strategy
email:
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone:
+1 508 377 9295
