This sounds like a good plan to me. I would
also suggest that we add a sentence in the specs (where the namespace
URI are defined) that there exists a real RDDL document behind the namespace
URI. I think people are by now (it took a long time!) used to ignoring the
hyperlinks for namespace URI ...
-- Sanjay
From: Gilbert Pilz
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2006 13:00
PM
To: Doug Davis
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
pending issues
It turns out that the minutes
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16391/MinutesWS-RX-1-19-2006.doc)
were less than helpful. They record that the TC "accepts the proposal as the
namespace URI v ersioning policy" but don't say whether this policy should be
included in any documents.
The RDDL documents already
contain the text of the policy. I think this is a good place for this text
because these documents are supposed to describe the namespace and one of the
important things you may want to know about a namespace it what its life-cycle
looks like.
I'm going to do the
following:
1.) check in the RDDL docs to
the WS-RX editors page
2.) make sure the RDDL docs
are in synch with the resolution to i088
3.) create links from WS-RM
and WS-RM Policy to the RDDL doce (really just links to the
namespace
Let me know how this
sounds.
- gp
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Gilbert
Pilz
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] pending
issues
Seems odd to me since the reader
of the doc can't really do anything with that info - its up to the spec
authors to decide when to change the namespace and the reader has no control
over it.
-Doug
"Gilbert Pilz"
<>
02/15/2006 02:27 PM
To
Doug
Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-rx-editors]
pending issues
My memory of the discussion
around i088 is that the policy statement should appear somewhere in the text
of both documents. I'll look through the minutes and see if I can piece
anything together . . .
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:24 AM
To:
Subject: [ws-rx-editors]
pending issues
All,
From looking thru the list of pending issues the only ones
left to complete are:
58 - I've asked Bob for the latest version of the state tables so
we can add them
88 - Is there really something that needs to go into the spec for
this? Looks more like 'guidance' than actual spec changes
93 - Haven't had time
yet
Does
anyone else have the time to look at 93 and 58 (once Bob sends the state
table)?
On the
positive side none of these really impact the specs very much (at least in
terms of the xml) - worst is a namespace change.
thanks
-Doug
