Hi Paul,
I'm asking all TCs to switch to the new template prior to Public Review. Updating the cover page is only a matter of
replacing a few existing out-of-date metdata fields with one or two new ones; you folks already have the URIs you need
for the cover page since they're already in use, and the namespace is declared.
Yes, the RDDL is a necessary component of the PR; otherwise the documents will be hidden from view.
Regards,
Mary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:49 AM
> To:
> Cc: ;
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
>
> Mary
>
> Our editors have had a look at the new template and they are
> concerned that switching to the new template will affect the
> PR timing and our vote.
>
> They have suggested the following approach:
> * The main difference between the new template and the old is
> the IPR text.
> * Therefore we add the IPR text to the current document for PR
> * During PR the editors switch to the new template and work
> on the HTML output
> * In addition they fix up the RDDL document during that period
>
> I think this addresses the problems for PR. Firstly, as long
> as the PR doc has the right IPR text the formatting shouldn't
> be an issue.
> Secondly, as I understand it the RDDL isn't a necessary piece
> of the PR.
>
> I have asked the editors to produce you the docs with the
> updated IPR text.
>
> Please let me know if this is acceptable.
>
> Paul
>
> Mary McRae wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I'm afraid that there's some work to be done on the
> package before
> > it can be sent out for public review. Since the documents
> will need to
> > be changed, I'm going to ask you to switch to the new
> templates as well, which satisfy the Naming Guidelines and
> Metadata policy that was adopted last fall.
> >
> > The template home page is here:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/
> > and you should be using the template for the 4-15-2005 IPR notices:
> >
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASISSpecificationTemplateV3.0.do
> > t (Word) or
> >
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASISSpecificationTemplateV3.0.ot
> > t (OO)
> >
> > The user guide
> >
> (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/OASIS_Specification_Temp
> late_Guidelines.html) hopefully does a good job of explaining
> what information goes where as well as links to the specific
> sections of the policy documents.
> >
> > Robin and I are also discussing how to handle the new/old
> namespace -
> > including noting the previous namespace in the current RDDL and
> > potentially making some note in the older one (200608). As
> I'm just reviewing this on Sat AM, I don't anticipate being
> able to resolve those questions until early next week but
> will get back to the TC as soon as possible.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > WS-Reliable Messaging (wsrm)
> > Specification:
> > In general:
> > Update cover page, Status and Notice section to correspond to the
> > templates noted above. This includes moving the Notice
> section from the rear of the document to the front.
> >
> > 1. The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> > acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> > 2. The wsdl does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> > 3. Acknowledgements:
> > Christopher Ferris-Editor(BM) -- (should be IBM?)
> >
> > DIFF (PDF file)
> > There are two diff files in the zip; I need a single diff file that
> > compares the version previously submitted for PR
> > (200608) with the current document.
> >
> > RDDL
> > *NOTE There should be some mention of the previous
> namespace; there is
> > also discussion underway about what information should be
> placed at the previous (200608) namespace indicating that
> it's been superceded.
> >
> > Schema
> > The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > WSDL
> > The wsdl does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> > WS-MakeConnection (wsmc)
> > Specification:
> > In general:
> > Update cover page, Status and Notice section to correspond to the
> > templates noted above. This includes moving the Notice
> section from the rear of the document to the front.
> >
> > Specifics:
> > 1. This is the first CD of this document and should be marked
> > accordingly (Committee Draft 01) 2. Revision history must note that
> > this document began with extracted section(s) from WSRM and
> identify those section(s). Alternatively, this is a new
> document and subject to a 60-day public review.
> > 3. The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> > acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > RDDL
> > 1. This is the first CD of this document and should be marked
> > accordingly (revision 01)
> >
> > Schema
> > The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > WSDL
> > The wsdl does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > DIFF
> > For some reason there's a diff file in this directory; this
> is the first instance of this document.
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> > WS-RM Policy (wsrmp)
> > Specification:
> > In general:
> > Update cover page, Status and Notice section to correspond to the
> > templates noted above. This includes moving the Notice
> section from the rear of the document to the front.
> >
> > 1.The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it is
> > acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > DIFF (PDF file)
> > There are two diff files in the zip; I need a single diff file that
> > compares the version previously submitted for PR
> > (200608) with the current document.
> >
> > RDDL
> > *NOTE There should be some mention of the previous
> namespace; there is
> > also discussion underway about what information should be
> placed at the previous (200608) namespace indicating that
> it's been superceded.
> >
> > Schema
> > The schema does not need to contain the entire notice; it
> is acceptable for it to contain only the Copyright slug line.
> > However, the notice included is for Legacy IPR TCs rather
> than that contained in the 4-15-05 IPR Policy.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > I'll try to turn new files around as quickly as possible
> but can make no promises beyond the stated 5 business day SLA.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:43 PM
> >> To:
> >> Cc: ; ;
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >> The basic situation is that 22286 has more beautiful HTML and
> >> 22268 has the images in it.
> >>
> >> I propose that we go with 22268 for PR (since it is more
> accurate if
> >> less beautiful) and that in the meantime the editors will
> prepare a
> >> beautified version of the HTML that will be the basis of our CS.
> >>
> >> Please remember to include our HTML disclaimer!
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mary McRae wrote:
> >>> So I should use this one (22286) rather than 22268?
> >>>
> >>> m
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [mailto:]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:16 PM
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Cc:
> >>>> Subject: [ws-rx] Groups - ws-rx_cd05.zip uploaded
> >>>>
> >>>> Replaced HTML versions with Marc Goodner's better HTML files.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Gilbert Pilz
> >>>>
> >>>> The document revision named ws-rx_cd05.zip has been submitted by
> >>>> Gilbert Pilz to the OASIS Web Services Reliable Exchange
> >>>> (WS-RX) TC document repository. This document is revision #1 of
> >>>> ws-rx_cd05.zip.
> >>>>
> >>>> Document Description:
> >>>> Complete WS-RX CD05 package in proper directory
> structure and RDDL
> >>>> files.
> >>>> Replaced HTML versions with Marc Goodner's better HTML files.
> >>>>
> >>>> View Document Details:
> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/document.ph
> >>>> p?document_id=22286
> >>>>
> >>>> Download Document:
> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
> >>>> p/22286/ws-rx_cd05.zip
> >>>>
> >>>> Revision:
> >>>> This document is revision #1 of ws-rx_cd05.zip. The
> >> document details
> >>>> page referenced above will show the complete revision history.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email
> >>>> application may be breaking the link into two pieces.
> >>>> You may be able to copy and paste the entire link
> address into the
> >>>> address field of your web browser.
> >>>>
> >>>> -OASIS Open Administration
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Paul Fremantle
> >> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> >> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >>
> >> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> >>
> >> (646) 290 8050
> >>
> >> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
>
> (646) 290 8050
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
