MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
oasis-member-discuss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] RE: RDDL use in ASIS
From: Christopher B Ferris <>
To: William Cox <>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:00:07 -0500
WS-RX used the 2.0 form.
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
William Cox <> wrote on 03/02/2006
10:36:16 PM:
> Hal -
>
> There's also one at a hidden URL at http://rddl.org/rddl2 identified
> as RDDL 2.0 dated January 18, 2004, with a previous version linked
> and dated February 18, 2002 at openhealth.org (rather than to the
> one of the same date at rddl.org!).
>
> I haven't tried to compare the versions at this point.
>
> Chris Ferris did an update to accommodate OASIS metadata; several
> TCs are using that version. Don't know whether he started from 1.x
or 2.0.
>
> bill
>
> Hal Lockhart wrote:
> | What do others think? As I said, there was
a lot of pushback on
>
> RDDL.
>
> I don't recall reading the pushback on RDDL,
but "and preference to
> have an index.html or one of the other default HTML pages" isn't
> related. RDDL is a mechanism for placing metadata in HTML.
>
>
>
> Ok, for the record, last summer Bill and I tried to figure out the
> standards pedigree of RDDL so we could cite it.
>
> No sign of it at W3C, not even published as a Note.
>
> At www.rddl.org, there is a spec dated Feb 18, 2002, no version
> specified. I guess this is version 1.
>
> At http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/20040118/rddl-20040118.html there
is a
> spec dated Jan 18, 2004 marked as version 2.0. It describes itself
as "a
> draft".
>
> At http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html there is a document dated
> June 1, 2003, with no version. Not sure what version this is. Perhaps
> Tim's private version? If it is RDDL 3, it is older than RDDL 2.0.
>
> All of these contain the sentence "This document has no official
> standing and has not been considered nor approved by any organization."
>
> There are also a number of articles, implementations and even a
> Wikipedia article (which points to the 2002 version). The 2004 version
> says "While this document has no official standing, it is the
intention
> of the TAG to seek guidance from the W3C membership and the larger
> community on the question of whether and how to progress this document
> and the use of RDDL." As far as I can see there has been no work
done on
> RDDL in 2 years.
>
> Will the real RDDL please stand up? If this is as great stuff as you
all
> say it is, can't somebody put in enough time to push it thru an OASIS
TC
> or publish it as a TAG Finding? If I put a normative reference to
> something with a pedigree like this in an OASIS Committee Spec and
> submitted it for member approval, I would end up with a bunch of arrows
> sticking out of me.
>
> Hal
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain
> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
this
> by email and then delete it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
References:
Re: [oasis-member-discuss] RE: RDDL use in ASIS
From: William Cox <>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
