Re: [chairs] Unique OASIS document identifiers

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Just FYI, I probably won't be posting/responding much until December 2 
because I've got other things on my plate till then, so you shouldn't 
construe my silence as anything significant.  A couple of teaser 
responses below:

Jeff Hodges wrote:
> I think the above is kinda mixing some things together, such as notions of
> maturity level and doc track. 
> 
> The way I'd do it is like this..
> 
>   draft -- for proposals and working drafts and committee drafts. I 
>            don't think we really need the fine distinction between them. 
> 
>            this designation is used in conjunction with the next "term" in
>            the filename, which is either an individual's name, or an 
>            acronym representing a committee. Often, "proposals" will be 
>            from individuals...

This seems fine to me ("wd" is a little shorter and is reminiscent of 
W3C specs, but I suppose it does result in less pronounceable filenames).

>   cs    -- committee spec
> 
>   oasis -- oasis standard

I like this too, and it's better than "os", which could be confusing.

> so the above two doc types (indiv proposer, vs a committee working draft) would
> be..
> 
>    draft-{name_of_proposer}-{description}-nn
> 
> ..or..
> 
>    draft-{name_of_TC}-{description}-nn
> 
> 
> The only "official" output of a committee is (to me) a "committee
> specification" maturity-level doc. Now, that doc may or may not be "standards
> track", ie it might be what you're thinking of tagging as "info" (aside: I'd
> merge the notions of "info" and "white paper"). 

(Actually, just in case people are confused by this...  I removed "info" 
from the proposal I sent to the chairs list; Jeff and I did a round or 
two before I sent it out more widely.)

> we may or may not want to denote the doc track in the filename, I'm conflicted
> on this. 

It's clear that some groups are producing informational documents 
already, so I think we need to address this.  I used "wp-xxxxxx" for a 
white paper I wrote in the UBL TC, for example.  And it sounds like Bill 
Pope needs this too.

>>   Vnn
>>     Is a representation of the version of the Standard, however the
>>     TC wants to reflect that.
> 
> couple of things here. I'd start the filename of an oasis std with "oasis". I
> wouldn't put the committee name in the filename cuz in an efficient the docs
> will last longer than the committee. Plus I wouldn't have a Vnn version
> designator in the filename. I'd have an oasis-wide monotonically increasing doc
> number. the info about whether a spec is updated or obsoleted (and doc track
> and maturity level) is maintained in the document index (which might just be
> output from a spreadsheet for the time being). 
> 
> this gives something like..
> 
>   oasis-####-{description}
> 
> where #### is the oasis doc number. 
> 
> 
> examples..
> 
>   oasis-0011-docbook-whatever
>   oasis-0029-saml-core
>   oasis-0030-saml-bindings

This will hinge on whether OASIS/Karl is willing to be the owner of the 
number assignment.  I can't imagine that this is a gargantuan task, but 
it's not currently on their plate, so we need to check.

(I don't mind the unique number thing; IETF uses it, JCP uses it, and 
others do as well.)

	Eve
-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com