author list for XML rendering
Hi everyone, As I am sure you are aware, we have been working on the GLUE2 XML rendering over the last 6mths or so. We are now at a stage where we would like to submit the doc for public comment. The document has changed considerably since the previous version - the XSD is now based on 'flat' rendering using ID ref elements (rather than defining hierarchical/nested XSD) and includes abstract elements with substitution groups to model inheritance and extensibility. Despite the extent of these changes, we have carried over and modified a number of complex type definitions and constructs from the previous (hierarchical) document. With this in mind, a consensus for the author list and for additional acknowledgements is required. Note, given the extent of the changes, I don't want to submit the doc to public comment with names that I don't recognise but who have made important contributions in the past. Therefore, can you please let me know your preference/guidance? i.e. whether you still want to be named as an author (or not - you may not agree with the changes) or feel an acknowledgement is more suitable given the changes? Thanks for any clarifications, David ========================== David Meredith Scientific Computing Dept Daresbury Laboratory Tel: +44 (0) 1925 603762 Fax: +44 (0) 1925 603100 (Site) Email: david.meredith@stfc.ac.uk Skype name: davidismeredith -- Scanned by iCritical.
I just verified that everyone on the current Author list is still a member of the glue-wg e-mail list. JP On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:24 AM, david.meredith@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
Hi everyone, As I am sure you are aware, we have been working on the GLUE2 XML rendering over the last 6mths or so. We are now at a stage where we would like to submit the doc for public comment. The document has changed considerably since the previous version – the XSD is now based on ‘flat’ rendering using ID ref elements (rather than defining hierarchical/nested XSD) and includes abstract elements with substitution groups to model inheritance and extensibility. Despite the extent of these changes, we have carried over and modified a number of complex type definitions and constructs from the previous (hierarchical) document.
With this in mind, a consensus for the author list and for additional acknowledgements is required. Note, given the extent of the changes, I don’t want to submit the doc to public comment with names that I don’t recognise but who have made important contributions in the past. Therefore, can you please let me know your preference/guidance? i.e. whether you still want to be named as an author (or not - you may not agree with the changes) or feel an acknowledgement is more suitable given the changes?
Thanks for any clarifications, David
========================== David Meredith Scientific Computing Dept Daresbury Laboratory Tel: +44 (0) 1925 603762 Fax: +44 (0) 1925 603100 (Site) Email: david.meredith@stfc.ac.uk Skype name: davidismeredith
-- Scanned by iCritical.
<ogf-glue2-GFD-flatXSD.doc>_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of david.meredith@stfc.ac.uk said:
As I am sure you are aware, we have been working on the GLUE2 XML rendering over the last 6mths or so. We are now at a stage where we would like to submit the doc for public comment.
As a side comment, I printed the document without checking the page count, and then noticed that it's three times longer than before - do we really want to have 42 pages of XML schema appended?
With this in mind, a consensus for the author list and for additional acknowledgements is required. Note, given the extent of the changes, I don't want to submit the doc to public comment with names that I don't recognise but who have made important contributions in the past.
I'm not sure what the policy is generally - I think the author list was copied from the main schema document, i.e. probably several people haven't worked on XML specifically (including me to a large extent!) but have contributed to the schema in general. Also in my case the affiliation should probably be egi.eu rather than RAL, or perhaps both - I don't know how we deal with institutional changes. (Sergio is similar - listed as INFN in the header but egi in the details.) Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
What document are you referring to? The ogf-glue2-GFD-flatXSD document I see has 25 pages. http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=31 JP On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:56 AM, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
As a side comment, I printed the document without checking the page count, and then noticed that it's three times longer than before - do we really want to have 42 pages of XML schema appended?
Ah, it's staring me in the face! I was looking in redmine. I agree, the XML schema should be a separate document published along with the descriptive one, that way the published schema is usable in it's native form.. JP On Mar 26, 2013, at 4:27 PM, <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
JP Navarro [mailto:navarro@mcs.anl.gov] said:
What document are you referring to?
The one that was attached to the mail I replied to!
Stephen
-- Scanned by iCritical.
Well, the schema should eventually appear under http://schemas.ogf.org/, and thus becomes 'usable in it's native form', right? But most groups so far included their schemas in the document, mostly to have some normative document to point to I guess. My $0.02, Andre. On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:42 PM, JP Navarro <navarro@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
Ah, it's staring me in the face! I was looking in redmine.
I agree, the XML schema should be a separate document published along with the descriptive one, that way the published schema is usable in it's native form..
JP
On Mar 26, 2013, at 4:27 PM, <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
JP Navarro [mailto:navarro@mcs.anl.gov] said:
What document are you referring to?
The one that was attached to the mail I replied to!
Stephen
-- Scanned by iCritical.
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Nothing is really difficult.
Hi JP, I've submitted the GFD draft with the XSD included for public comment - this is the same as most OGF XSD docs I've seen. If necessary, we can remove the XSD toward the end of the public comment phase, but for now I think it's probably more useful it being in there for review purposes. Cheers, David
-----Original Message----- From: glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky Sent: 26 March 2013 21:58 To: JP Navarro Cc: glue-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [glue-wg] author list for XML rendering
Well, the schema should eventually appear under http://schemas.ogf.org/, and thus becomes 'usable in it's native form', right? But most groups so far included their schemas in the document, mostly to have some normative document to point to I guess.
My $0.02,
Andre.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:42 PM, JP Navarro <navarro@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
Ah, it's staring me in the face! I was looking in redmine.
I agree, the XML schema should be a separate document published along with the descriptive one, that way the published schema is usable in it's native form..
JP
On Mar 26, 2013, at 4:27 PM, <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
JP Navarro [mailto:navarro@mcs.anl.gov] said:
What document are you referring to?
The one that was attached to the mail I replied to!
Stephen
-- Scanned by iCritical.
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Nothing is really difficult. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg -- Scanned by iCritical.
participants (4)
-
Andre Merzky -
david.meredith＠stfc.ac.uk -
JP Navarro -
stephen.burke＠stfc.ac.uk