W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > December 2006

RE: WebCGM 2.0 REC cover page

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:39:01 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Janet Daly" <janet@w3.org>,"W3C Comm Team" <w3t-comm@w3.org>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
After some further clarification with Dave, I understand S1000D's problem, 
and using the "Latest Version" URI for WebCGM 2.0 does not solve it.  While 
one might wonder about the S1000D conventions (I suspect they won't 
change), nevertheless this does plug into a concern of my own, particularly 
after Ian's reply about press release timing, etc.

Here is my concern and question.... Does WebCGM 2.0 not achieve REC status 
until the joint press release is done and issued? That seems unnecessarily 
constraining. WebCGM 2.0 should be able to move to REC status as soon as we 
know that OS status is assured (which we now know, and which will be 
formally declared on/around 2nd January).

I think it might bother some of the constituents if the timing of this 
joint press release delays us for another month, after all substantive 
matters have been finished.

Since there are zero substantive procedural hurdles remaining, why can't we 
just pick a date now, like 20070110 or 20070115, and commit to it?  So, for 
example, S1000D would be able to rely on "This version" being:


(Note that S1000D convention is to derive an identifier from the "This 
version" URI of referenced W3C RECs -- but "This version" is not actually 
used as a hyperlink to the document location.  "Latest version" URI 
apparently suffices for that need.)

Btw, I have heard that some companies' may be struggling with getting out 
their endorsement/quote, and this would be further reason to commit to a 
publication date and move forward.

Perhaps Ian and Comm could comment on whether this approach will work, or 
on the other hand whether it violates some important substantive process 
requirement of W3C.


At 07:36 AM 12/29/2006 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>Were'nt we thinking that REC "Latest Version" URI is the best that we 
>might be able to do:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Dec/0026.html  ?
>Or are we hoping that the URI of the dated version might be known 
>now?  (Given that the OASIS ballot has passed and there is nothing left 
>but to put together the PR and announcement in the two organizations.)
>At 03:24 PM 12/28/2006 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>>  Ian,
>>I've got 2 industry specifications (ATA iSpec2200 and ASD S1000D) in
>>final text editing stages for publication that are have cascading
>>profiles of WebCGM 2.0. S100D will publish the end of February and
>>iSpec2200 in March or April.  I need to get REC references into both of
>>them as soon as possible.  We know it will look something like
>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-200701nn, but
>>we don't have the "nn" to fill in.  I'm getting a lot of pressure to
>>provide that "nn".  Any idea when we can nail it down?
>>Thx...Dave Cruikshank
>>Member, W3C WebCGM WG
>>Chair, OASIS WebCGM TC
>>Chair, ATA Graphics Technology Working Group
>>Member, Graphics subteam ASD Electronic Publication Working Group
>>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
>>Boeing Commercial Airplane
>>206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:38 AM
>>To: Thierry Michel
>>Cc: Janet Daly; W3C Comm Team; Lofton Henderson; WebCGM WG
>>Subject: Re: WebCGM 2.0 REC cover page
>>Hi Thierry,
>>Janet is on vacation through the end of the year. Here is the current
>>state of my knowledge:
>>  * We are aiming to issue a press release around 30 January.
>>  * Janet has started discussions with Carol but we do not have
>>    a draft available. I anticipate that a draft press release
>>    will be available mid-January.
>>Janet will resume discussions with Carol (and us) in January.
>>  _ Ian
>>On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 20:48 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>> > Janet,
>> >
>> > We shortly discussed the WebCGM REC cover page at the Tokyo meeting.
>> >
>> > Could you please review the page and let us know if it is fine with
>> >
>> > Could you please also report on the advancement of the join W3C OASIS
>> > Press release that you are working on with Carol.
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Thierry.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thierry Michel wrote:
>> > > Janet,
>> > >
>> > > Per my action item during the last WebCGM telecon you attended,
>> > > where we discussed about the WebCGM 2.0 joint Press release with
>> > > OASIS and REC cover page.
>> > >
>> > > I have drafted the WebCGM 2.0 REC cover page which shows the joint
>> > > work with OASIS.
>> > >
>> > > The Rec is installed at
>> > > http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2006/REC-webcgm20-20070115/
>> > >
>> > > As you suggested I took things from the XML signature and PNG Recs
>> > >
>> > > - 2 logos
>> > > - 2 links to "This version"
>> > > - copyrights with OASIS
>> > > - SOTD mentioning
>> > > "This specification was produced jointly by OASIS and W3C. It is
>> > > published simultaneously as an OASIS Standard and a W3C
>> > > The two documents have exactly identical content except for cover
>> > > page and formatting differences as appropriate to the two
>> > >
>> > > Please review the cover page and let me know if this is good.
>> > >
>> > > Thierry
>> > >
>>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 29 December 2006 23:39:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC