On 06/14/13 13:11, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On
Behalf Of JP Navarro said: I think we should discuss other Enumerations and get consensus before we start publishing them, or they should be labeled as DRAFT.
I'm not exactly sure what you want to label as DRAFT - the enumerated values themselves,
no
the publication method
yes
or the procedures?
yes For these above I just need to state ' this si a draft' somewhere in the text. But JP suggests we should have a draft status also for the CSV files that have: 1) values that differ from GFD147 AND 2) that we did not discuss within the group. that is, all CSV files but ServiceType_t.csv Since .csv files do not support comments, I need to mark their statuses in some other way, like I explained in the previous email.
For the actual values I don't think calling them drafts would make much sense. On one side they are constantly growing so will always be drafts.
Agree
On the other hand, for values defined in the schema doc or which are already in use they can't just be changed arbitrarily, we would need a good reason and a deprecation procedure - in practice there could be a long period with both old and new values being published so it isn't something to do lightly.
Agree -- that's why we use deprecated or obsolete. For ServiceType_t we had this discussion before, and all the participants decided together, so I have no intention to discuss that again for now. So that would be the only non-draft document. Cheers, Florido -- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - EMI Project System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se ==================================================