Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Some +1's for the comments on ASIS to date

I don't know how I missed Norm's comments
in the archives. But a big +1 is in order.

I would also add a BIG +1 to mandating
XHTML as THE normative format for OASIS

specs and fully concur with his comments
regarding two normative formats.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris

STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy

email: 

blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440

phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Marc Goodner" <>
wrote on 02/27/2006 07:20:07 PM:

> As I only just subscribed to this list and can not reply to what I

> see in the archives (seems this is a long lamented shortcoming of

> the mail archives here) I’ll collect my +1’s here while I collect
my

> own feedback.

>  

> To Norm’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-

> discuss/200602/msg00004.html 

> “However, I don't think the document is ready
for adoption. There 

> are simply far to many places where it's unclear or underspecified.”

>  

> I couldn’t agree more with this statement. His
concerns about the 

> involvement of the TC Administrator will be echoed in my own 

> comments. His line numbered comments are very thorough and I don’t

> see any that leap out at me as something I disagree with. In fact
I 

> think his comments here are good enough I question why I would go

> through the effort to reproduce a less complete version of his list.

>  

> To Chris’ mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-

> discuss/200602/msg00002.html 

>  

> Again, as in Norm’s mail I question what more
I can add to this 

> discussion. +1. In particular the comments regarding RDDL and 

> namespaces, there is no reason every TC should have to go through

> the same startup costs around this and the guidance provided in the

> ASIS is of no substantive help. I don’t understand why so much time

> was spent on URN (with notes that seem wholly inappropriate about

> wanting to change the referenced RFCs) and almost no attention was

> given to namespaces. Also I agree that the products should be 

> beneath the TC subtree, doing otherwise only invites naming 

> collisions. I also don’t understand how the relationship of the 

> products to the relevant TC would be clear to the public in such a
scheme.

>  

> To Ian’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-member-

> discuss/200602/msg00003.html

>  

> Yes, a big +1. We had the same problem on the
RX call this week. I 

> can’t wait to have the discussion in the SX TC this week which will

> unfortunately be too late for comments to come in from that TC.

>  

> To G. Ken Holman’s mail: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-

> member-discuss/200602/msg00005.html 

>  

> Another big +1, especially to this “I believe
OASIS has to make the 

> process of writing specifications *easier* in order to help people

> with limited time involved in the already lengthy process of writing

> to produce something that can be used.  Therefore, the burden
should

> be focused to accomplish the goal and not so broad as to deter 

> contributions.” Exactly. 

>  

> Right now I don’t think ASIS is a step in the
right direction to 

> accomplish this. It may be that we need all of this metadata, but

> for now this document only worries me about complicating my 

> participation in a TC and increasing my work in any editorial tasks

> I might volunteer for. I think the goal for ASIS should be to get

> the right metadata *and* reduce the work load on those who volunteer

> for editorial tasks within a TC. 

>  

> Marc Goodner

> Technical Diplomat

> Microsoft Corporation

> Tel: (425) 703-1903

> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 

>