RE: WebCGM 2.0 REC cover page

On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 16:39 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Hi Lofton,

Although it is not strictly required that we sync up the publication
and the press release, it is strongly preferred. I have a record
of Thierry Michel indicating (on 17 Nov) that the WG agreed to
do the publication of the Recommendation at the same time as the
press release (in January 2007). Our current plan, based on other
work at W3C, is to issue the Recommendation and press release on 30
January. 

>  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 do not believe we are prepared to issue the Recommendation that
quickly. We should aim for 30 January 2007.

I hope that helps,

 _ Ian

> 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:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070115/
> 
> (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.
> 
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.)
> > 
> > -Lofton.
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> > > 
> > > -----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
> > > W3C.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > Recommendation.
> > > > > The two documents have exactly identical content except for
> > > cover
> > > > > page and formatting differences as appropriate to the two
> > > organizations".
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447