Re: [chairs] Unique OASIS document identifiers

[Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@sun.com>]

"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
> 
> 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:

a few teaser responses as I'm similarly buried. 


> 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).

right, and "wd" doesn't as clearly denote "it's a DRAFT" :)

 
> >   cs    -- committee spec
> >
> >   oasis -- oasis standard
> 
> I like this too, and it's better than "os", which could be confusing.

great.


> > 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.

well, for "white papers", I'd call 'em a "draft" until when/if they are voted
on as being an official output of whatever originating TC. Then I'd term 'em as
"cs-", but on the "informational" track (rather than the "standards" track). 



> >>   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.)


I think given that OASIS issues only a handful of OASIS-wide approved docs a
month, and that the secretariat (Karl Best et al) have a month's notice, that
this could be easily done by the secretariat (eg using a spreadsheet).

JeffH