RE: WebCGM 2.0 REC cover page

Just to close this thread: Lofton and I chatted this afternoon and
I think were in agreement on a number of points. He plans to discuss
them with the WG tomorrow. I don't know that additional discussion
on this thread will be necessary; the next thread will probably
involve the Webmaster.

 - Ian

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 20:15 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> Could you join the WG's telecon at 9am Thursday, 4th January?
> 
> I'm not entirely certain that I understand all the implications of your 
> comments about latest-version URIs, particularly as applies to the text.
> 
> I will note here that the OS (OASIS) text is frozen.  OASIS process does 
> not allow, subsequent to the successful OS ballot, *any* changes other than 
> the cover page.  OS text is currently identical to the W3C text, except for 
> the cover page and the stylesheets.  We  have tried very hard to keep these 
> two as the only differences.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> At 05:50 PM 1/2/2007 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> >On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 09:33 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reponse. I don't mind delaying the publication of the
> > > REC until Jan 30, but what I really need is a dated REC name to refer
> > > to.  It's ok if the name is: REC-webcgm20-20070130 because the two
> > > industry specifications relying on WebCGM 2.0 won't be published until
> > > after that date.  I just want to nail down the 200701"nn" so final
> > > editing can happen in S1000D Issue 2.3 and ATA iSpec2200.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >Hi Dave,
> >
> >The URI for the spec is likely to be:
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
> >
> >However, I can't guarantee that 100%, simply because I can't
> >guarantee the future.
> >
> >Meanwhile, I would like to talk to the WG about using several
> >latest version URIs in the Recommendation, following this guidance [1].
> >Specially, I propose these "latest version" URIs:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/ -> Most advanced Web CGM Recommendation
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm1/ -> Latest Web CGM 1.x
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm2/ -> Latest Web CGM 2.x
> >
> >Thus, when Web CGM 2.0 is published as a Recommendation, it would
> >include two latest version URIs: (the first and third above). Should
> >there ever be Web CGM 3, we would update /TR/webcgm to point to that
> >Recommendation. This would allow readers of the Web CGM 2.x
> >Recommendation to find the newer Web CGM 3 without our having to
> >republish any specifications.
> >
> >[Unfortunately Web CGM 1.x did not include these URIs and so readers
> >of Web CGM 1.x on the Web will not find the v2 and later versions as
> >easily.]
> >
> >I also suggest deprecating the short name webcgm20 since it is likely
> >to become a dead end if you decide to publish web cgm 2.1. We can
> >redirect the current webcgm20 to webcgm2.
> >
> >  - Ian
> >
> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
> >
> > > Thx...Dave Cruikshank
> > >
> > > 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: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:16 AM
> > > To: Lofton Henderson
> > > Cc: Cruikshank, David W; Janet Daly; W3C Comm Team; WebCGM WG
> > > Subject: 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
> 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447