Hi Scott,Â
I just caught your question. While it is not common, we have at least one spec that I know of where we allowed a non-OASIS namespace. If you look at the OSLC specs - for example, OSLC Core atÂhttp://docs.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/oslc-core/v3.0/oslc-core-v3.0-part1-overview.html - you'll see their namespace is to open-services.net.Â
In this case, having a substantial deployed base under the existing namespace certainly makes a reasonable argument for leaving it as is.Â
I assume this would cause no IPR violations, correct? It wouldn't be impinging on their copyrights or anything like that, right? Mucking up IPR is the only reason I could see for not doing this.Â
Best,Â
/chet
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Cantor, Scott <> wrote:
In case anybody reading this knows the answer, I was asked about possibly standardizing a metadata extension the Shibboleth Project defined many years ago as part of the Subject-ID draft I've been working on, and the impediment is that we can't really change the XML namespace at this stage, there's just too much deployment and it would be a total waste of time to move it now.
I can't find a statement that unambiguously states it's absolutely disallowed for an OASIS specification to publish an XML schema in a non-OASIS (but legitimate) namespace, but I certainly can't find a lot of evidence that we could either. Is there a clear yes/no rule on this?
-- Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
/chetÂ
----------------
Looking forward toÂBorderless Cyber 2018,Â3-5 Oct, Washington, D.C.
Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University
Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393Â
