Didn’t the TC already agree to a
convention in relation to issue 15? From the minutes at [1] I thought we
agreed to accept my proposal referenced in the minutes:
---------------------------------------
Excerpt from the minutes:
---------------------------------------
Ian: Colleen's proposal is to keep the hyphen. It is at http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-tx/200602/msg00007.html
Eric: The proposal is to keep the hyphen.
Do we have consensus? Is there any objection to keeping the
hyphen?
Ram Jeyaraman: There are a couple of documents which need
reflect the resolution of this issue.
Colleen: We can follow what other committees like RX are doing.
There is a link to what they are doing, in my proposal.
Ian: We also need to supply values for the yyyy/mm in the
namespace. We should use 2006/03, based on the date we expect the CD or CDs to
be approved. It is not a critical date; we just need to establish it.
Ian: Move to adopt the versioning policy including the WS-RX
policy.
Ram: Second.
Monica: Can someone explain the WS-RX model for versioning?
Ian: The pointer is http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i088
Ram: The policy states that the namespace will not change
arbitrarily. It will change only when a published CD or specification results
in a non-backwardly compatible namespace, and defines the changes which are
considered not to be backwardly compatible.
Alastair: It should say either CD or specification changes.
Eric: Yes, that is included.
Martin: I would like to feed our decision back to the ASIS
review.
ACTION: Chairs to inform
ASIS that we are not following the guideline with respect to hyphens.
Eric: Any objections to passing the proposal, including the
WS-RX policy?
No objections noted.
Proposal for resolution of issue 15 has passed.
---------------------------------------
Thanks,
Colleen
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/16930/WS-TX_Minutes_2006_02_23.htm
[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-tx/200602/msg00007.html
From: Thomas Freund
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:13
AM
To: Ian Robinson
Cc: Andrew Wilkinson3; Max
Feingold;
Subject: RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw:
Editors instructions
I opt for using #1 (as per Ian's suggestion &
using the 2006/03 date) ... just out of curiosity why is it that that the
namespace slightly different between the two ... i.e. #1 is fine with just
"wscoor" where #2 is "wstx-wscoor" (where everthing
prepending that portion is the same)
Regards
Tom
Ian
Robinson <>
Ian
Robinson <>
03/03/2006 04:33 AM
To
Andrew Wilkinson3
<>
cc
"Max
Feingold" <>, Thomas Freund/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Subject
RE: [ws-tx-editors]
Fw: Editors instructions
With regard to cross-references between the specs
(e.g a [WSCOOR] ref in
WS-AT) there are 2 choices:
1. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wscoor/2006/03,
which will resolve to a
RDDL doc
2. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf which
will resolve to the specification document itself
#1 above is fairly common practice and more
consistent with the existing
references.
Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions
Architect
IBM Hursley
Lab, UK
Andrew
Wilkinson3/UK/IBM
@IBMGB
To
"Max Feingold"
03/03/2006 10:14
<>,
"Thomas Freund"
<>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors
instructions
Thanks both.
I'll update the reference to WSCOOR too.
I had opted for a date of 2006/03 per Ian's
recommendation on last week's
telecon:
"We also need to supply values for the
yyyy/mm in the namespace. We
should use 2006/03, based on the date we expect
the CD or CDs to be
approved." -
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/16930/WS-TX_Minutes_2006_02_23.htm
So, just for the sake of clarity, that makes the
three namespaces:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wscoor/2006/03
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wsat/2006/03
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wsba/2006/03
Andy
"Max Feingold" <>
02/03/2006 20:19
To
"Thomas Freund"
<>,
<>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
Andy:
My intention for WS-C was to update all references
in the text, as Tom
indicates.
From: Thomas Freund [mailto:]
Sent: Thu 3/2/2006 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors
instructions
Andrew,
I had intended to do a global change (including
the refs --- and several
additional lines that seem to have been missed in
the issue)
Tom
Andrew Wilkinson3 <>
Andrew Wilkinson3 <>
03/02/2006 11:42 AM
To
cc
Subject
Re: [ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
Max, Tom
In the interests of consistency how far do you
plan to go with the changes
for WS-Coor and WS-BA for issue 15?
I intend to update AT to describe coor with a
namespace of
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wscoor/2006/03.
At the moment I don't
intend to update the non-normative WSCOOR
reference to refer to the new
specification; changing the list of authors and
publication date etc. Does
this seem reasonable - I don't feel strongly
about this, just that it
would be good for all 3 specs to be updated
similarly.
Thanks,
Andy
Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
02/03/2006 16:14
To
cc
Subject
[ws-tx-editors] Fw: Editors instructions
One further thing.
As a general rule it would help the TC if each WD
had cumulative
change-tracking since the last approved draft (CD
or PR). We have no
approved draft yet; the base draft with respect to
which changes should be
tracked prior to our first CDs is the first drafts
that used the OASIS
templates. In this case, please just do your best;
if you haven't been
tracking changes in this way so far then just
start doing so from now.
Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions
Architect
IBM Hursley
Lab, UK
----- Forwarded by Ian Robinson/UK/IBM on
02/03/2006 16:08 -----
Ian
Robinson/UK/IBM
To
02/03/2006 16:02 wstx-editors
cc
Subject
Editors instructions
Hello Editors,
Per the discussion on the telecon last week,
please can you get updated
drafts to the TC by EOD Tues 7 March.
Please use the following conventions to ensure
consistency:
On the front page of each spec, please ensure you
use the appropriate "doc
identifier", "location" and
"Technical committee" name and correct form of
statustext.
1. Doc identifier value (this value should be on
the line following
"Document Identifier" and in the page
footer)
wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec-wd-03
wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-03
wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-03
2. Location value:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf
3. Technical committee
OASIS WS-TX TC
(Note upper case WS-TX)
4. Status.
The first line of the status section should state:
This document is published by the WS-TX TC as a
?working draft".
Please use a file name that is the doc identifier
with a ".doc" file
extension e.g wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-03.doc
We don't need to generate new PDFs yet. We will
produce PDFs whenever the
TC adopts a new CD.
The issues that we want to incorporate in these
drafts are listed below by
spec.
WS-Coordination
Issues: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, (18-21)
WS-AtomicTransaction
Issues: 15, 17
WS-BusinessActivity
Issues: 7, 15, 17,
Regards,
Ian
