RE: [search-ws] RE: Search WS TC "Discussion Document"

Thanks Ray!

 

  I’ll double-check the document and let you know if I see any
problems; otherwise I should get the announcement out either late tomorrow or
early next week.

 

Regards,

 

Mary

 

From: Ray Denenberg,
Library of Congress [mailto:] 

Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:20 PM

To: 

Cc: 'Patrick Gannon'; 'James Bryce Clark'; 'Scott McGrath'; 'Carol
Geyer'; 

Subject: Re: [search-ws] RE: Search WS TC "Discussion
Document"

 

Mary
- we are ready to release the "Discussion Document".  I wasn't
sure of the procedure on my end but I have uploaded the document in two
(identical) forms, pdf and word:

 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/search-ws/download.php/25956/search%20ws%20discussion%20document%20nov%202.pdf 

 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/search-ws/download.php/25957/search%20ws%20discussion%20document%20nov%202.doc

 

Let
me know if there is anything else I need to do, and if not please proceed to
release it.

 

Here
is a note that can be included:

'This
document: "Search Web Services Version 1.0  - Discussion Document - 2
November 2007", was prepared by the OASIS Search Web Services TC as a
strawman proposal, for public review, intended to generate discussion and
interest. It has no official status; it is not a Committee Draft. The
specification is based on the SRU (Search Retrieve via URL) specification which
can be found at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/. It is expected that this
standard, when published, will deviate from SRU. How much it will deviate
cannot be predicted at this time. The fact that the SRU spec is used as a
starting point for development should not be cause for concern that this might
be an effort to rubberstamp or fasttrack SRU. The committee hopes to preserve
the useful features of SRU, eliminate those that are not considered useful, and
add features that are not in SRU but are considered useful. The committee has
decided to request OASIS to release this as a discussion document. Detailed
review of this document is premature at this point and is not requested;
feedback on the functionality and approach is solicited.   Feedback
is requested by December 7.'

Thanks.

 

--Ray

 

 

 

-----
Original Message ----- 

From:
"Mary McRae" <>

To:
"'Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress'" <>

Cc:
"'Patrick Gannon'" <>; "'James
Bryce Clark'" <>; "'Scott
McGrath'" <>; "'Carol
Geyer'" <>; <>; <>

Sent:
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:48 AM

Subject:
[search-ws] RE: Search WS TC "Discussion Document"

 

>
Hi Ray,

> 

>   Congratulations! While we have a formal review required of
specifications, the

> TC is always able to request an informal review at any time for any length
of

> time. The Code List TC did this earlier this year with their requirements

> document; I've just announced a similar review for the Open Document
Format

> Accessibility Guidelines. If there's something particular you'd like to
include

> in the message (such as the type of feedback you're looking for) I'd be
happy to

> include it. The TC is also welcome to set the time limit although I would

> suggest at least 30 days to get the word out).

> 

> Regards,

> 

> Mary

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:]

> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:22 AM

> > To: Mary McRae

> > Cc: 'Patrick Gannon'; 'James Bryce Clark'; 'Scott McGrath'; Carol
Geyer;

> > ; 

> >
Subject: Search WS TC "Discussion Document"

> > 

> > Mary - Our TC is developing what we're calling a "Strawman"
or "Discussion"

> > document.

> > 

> > (It is not ready for release but there is a draft at:

> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/search-

> > ws/download.php/25679/search%20ws%20spec%20strawman.doc)

> > 

> > We have a conference call scheduled for tomorrow and we hope to
finalize it

> > then.  The document  is not intended as a Committee
Draft,  but we will

> > want

> > to release it in some form or another, as a "Discussion
Document"  to

> > solicit feedback from the community on the direction we're taking;
what

> > features should be dropped, retained, or added.  (We don't want
a "Review",

> > which might result in many specific technical comments that would be

> > premature at this stage.)

> > 

> > How should we proceed?  We realize that the OASIS formal review
procedure

> > kicks in only when we have a Committee Draft and we're a long way
from

> > that.

> > Could OASIS release this as a "Discussion Document"?

> > 

> > Thanks.

> > 

> > --Ray