Draft 23, incorporating some minor edits agreed at the last teleconference, is on Gridforge. If there are no additional comments by this Friday (10/21) I will be submitting it back to the GGF Editor. The draft https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/draft-ggf-jsdl-spec/en... The schemas: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl.xsd/en/15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl-posix.xsd/en/4 The public comment forum: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=552
I have some minor comments about your changes: 1) ch. 6.3 Application Elements As JSDL allows only one Application element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Application Element"? 2) ch. 6.4 Resource Elements As JSDL allows only one Resource element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Resource Element"? 3) Appendix 1 What's this funny HYPERLINK constrict in the document? 4) General nag Do we really have to publish Word documents? I generally feel uncomfortable with this. I rather prefer PDF for public audience... Cheers, Michel On 20 Oct 2005, at 0:54, Andreas Savva wrote:
Draft 23, incorporating some minor edits agreed at the last teleconference, is on Gridforge. If there are no additional comments by this Friday (10/21) I will be submitting it back to the GGF Editor.
The draft https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/draft-ggf- jsdl-spec/en/23
The schemas: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl.xsd/en/15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl- posix.xsd/en/4
The public comment forum: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=552
Agreed. The final version of the other documents on the GGF site do seem to be pdf format though. steve.. Michel Drescher wrote:
I have some minor comments about your changes:
1) ch. 6.3 Application Elements As JSDL allows only one Application element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Application Element"?
2) ch. 6.4 Resource Elements As JSDL allows only one Resource element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Resource Element"?
3) Appendix 1 What's this funny HYPERLINK constrict in the document?
4) General nag Do we really have to publish Word documents? I generally feel uncomfortable with this. I rather prefer PDF for public audience...
Cheers, Michel
On 20 Oct 2005, at 0:54, Andreas Savva wrote:
Draft 23, incorporating some minor edits agreed at the last teleconference, is on Gridforge. If there are no additional comments by this Friday (10/21) I will be submitting it back to the GGF Editor.
The draft https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/draft-ggf- jsdl-spec/en/23
The schemas: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl.xsd/en/15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl- posix.xsd/en/4
The public comment forum: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=552
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr A. Stephen McGough http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~asm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Coordinator, London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London, Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-8409 fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Michel, Michel Drescher wrote:
I have some minor comments about your changes:
1) ch. 6.3 Application Elements As JSDL allows only one Application element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Application Element"?
This is the top level section describing all application-related elements so 'Application Elements' is accurate. There is a separate subsection for the 'Application Element'.
2) ch. 6.4 Resource Elements As JSDL allows only one Resource element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Resource Element"?
The JSDL element is 'Resources' and has its own section while this is the top level section for all resource related elements. So it is accurate.
3) Appendix 1 What's this funny HYPERLINK constrict in the document?
You have to be more specific. Are you referring to the non-normative reference to the schema on gridforge? It seems fine to me. (Hopefully this is not a Windows-Mac issue...)
4) General nag Do we really have to publish Word documents? I generally feel uncomfortable with this. I rather prefer PDF for public audience...
What's your concern? Our work is meant to be publically available and copyright belongs with GGF. Andreas
Hi Andreas, On 20 Oct 2005, at 9:39, Andreas Savva wrote:
Hi Michel,
Michel Drescher wrote:
I have some minor comments about your changes:
1) ch. 6.3 Application Elements As JSDL allows only one Application element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Application Element"?
This is the top level section describing all application-related elements so 'Application Elements' is accurate. There is a separate subsection for the 'Application Element'.
Ok.
2) ch. 6.4 Resource Elements As JSDL allows only one Resource element, shouldn't the chapter be named "Resource Element"?
The JSDL element is 'Resources' and has its own section while this is the top level section for all resource related elements. So it is accurate.
Ok.
3) Appendix 1 What's this funny HYPERLINK constrict in the document?
You have to be more specific. Are you referring to the non-normative reference to the schema on gridforge? It seems fine to me. (Hopefully this is not a Windows-Mac issue...)
Normally, Word formats hyperlinks using blue colour (purple for visited links), underlines them and adds a special "open browser" action. The link in the appendix appeared to me as some type of Word Macro or Formula (like date fields etc. that update automatically) looking similar like "{HYPERLINK<hyerlink text>}". Now, opening the document the second time (from the local drive), the link is formatted correctly, and a tracked change nags about "Unknown Author: Field COde Changed".
4) General nag Do we really have to publish Word documents? I generally feel uncomfortable with this. I rather prefer PDF for public audience...
What's your concern? Our work is meant to be publically available and copyright belongs with GGF.
I am not concerned of copyright, I am concerned of the following: a) hidden, historic text fragments people may unleash (un)intentionally [see several issues where highly sensitive political documents unleashed that correct data has been changed to incorrect contents to suite the political party. Use Google to search for hidden historic content in Word documents.] b) We are (beware, I am wearing my GGF hat) a *standards* group. The Word document format in itself is not standardised. The fact that almost everybody uses it, does not qualify it as a real standard. To be honest, I really *do* prefer the OpenDocument format, standardised by OASIS. There are several word processors that do support this document format. c) Word is obviously inconsistent in itself (is this really new info?), see this funny hyperlink example. Other examples are different document formatting depending on the printer used (and fonts available on the system), etc. d) Using Word documents forces every author to use Word as well. This incurs substantial costs on all participants. While this is usually of a lesser issues for larger companies (who do have Word licenses anyway) private persons (who should be attracted by *really* open standardisation groups as well) are barred out except they invest in software. I find this quite ironic. e) Interoperability (may also be seen as a subtopic of d) is an issue here. People prefer different platforms for software development. Now, as everybody knows, Word is *NOT* available for i.e. Linux. [Personal rant: Why bother, there are tons of way more productive alternatives available!] So you force people to actively *buy* Windows (or, preferably, Mac OS X) *and* Word. Call me an extremist. Cheers, Michel
Michel Drescher wrote:
I am not concerned of copyright, I am concerned of the following:
a) hidden, historic text fragments people may unleash (un)intentionally [see several issues where highly sensitive political documents unleashed that correct data has been changed to incorrect contents to suite the political party. Use Google to search for hidden historic content in Word documents.]
Since the document is still a draft, I'd imagine that the fact that it is in a format suitable for drafts would not be a major issue. I would expect it to be published as a PDF when it goes up on the list of public documents; that's just a mechanical format change. On the other hand, tools for editing PDF documents are much less common in practice than tools for editing Word documents.
b) We are (beware, I am wearing my GGF hat) a *standards* group. The Word document format in itself is not standardised. The fact that almost everybody uses it, does not qualify it as a real standard. To be honest, I really *do* prefer the OpenDocument format, standardised by OASIS. There are several word processors that do support this document format.
Surely it does not matter what format a working group uses to do its work as long as the group actually manages to do the work? (Note that I differentiate the publication of versions for public comments and as actual standards recommendations; those are fixed documents and as such should be PDF documents, the PDF format having a very good record of readability across deployments.) In other words, as long as we on the group can cope with Word, we're fine to use it for our drafts. Switching document formats *now* would be a bad move!
c) Word is obviously inconsistent in itself (is this really new info?), see this funny hyperlink example. Other examples are different document formatting depending on the printer used (and fonts available on the system), etc.
Is this a critical issue in a draft? Is there any part of the specification of JSDL that depends on the layout of the content upon the page? I'd hope not...
d) Using Word documents forces every author to use Word as well. This incurs substantial costs on all participants. While this is usually of a lesser issues for larger companies (who do have Word licenses anyway) private persons (who should be attracted by *really* open standardisation groups as well) are barred out except they invest in software. I find this quite ironic.
e) Interoperability (may also be seen as a subtopic of d) is an issue here. People prefer different platforms for software development. Now, as everybody knows, Word is *NOT* available for i.e. Linux. [Personal rant: Why bother, there are tons of way more productive alternatives available!] So you force people to actively *buy* Windows (or, preferably, Mac OS X) *and* Word.
Does anyone have a LaTeX style file or class that produces documents compliant with the GGF document formatting rules? If anyone was to work with anything other than word (the ability to import and export word docs is fairly common among word processors on Linux IIRC) I'd have to suggest that the only sane thing to use is a format that is known to be ultra stable and which produces very high quality output indeed. By contrast, switching to OpenDoc as you suggested given the current state of support for the format within Word (which, like it or not, is what a fair number of us use) would impose significant costs of its own. The advantages of LaTeX are that virtually everyone who has ever produced an academic paper has come into contact with it, and the format is known to be practically stable across long periods of time (decades...) All of which is completely moot for this working group. What triggered this rant? Donal.
Guys, Before this becomes a huge religious war over document formats can I rule this out of scope! All the publicly made available documents on the GGF web page are in PDF format. If we're at the point where people are more willing to argue over file formats that problems in the spec then we are surely finished with 1.0 and should pass it out to the community and get on with the next grand challenge. steve.. Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Michel Drescher wrote:
I am not concerned of copyright, I am concerned of the following:
a) hidden, historic text fragments people may unleash (un)intentionally [see several issues where highly sensitive political documents unleashed that correct data has been changed to incorrect contents to suite the political party. Use Google to search for hidden historic content in Word documents.]
Since the document is still a draft, I'd imagine that the fact that it is in a format suitable for drafts would not be a major issue. I would expect it to be published as a PDF when it goes up on the list of public documents; that's just a mechanical format change. On the other hand, tools for editing PDF documents are much less common in practice than tools for editing Word documents.
b) We are (beware, I am wearing my GGF hat) a *standards* group. The Word document format in itself is not standardised. The fact that almost everybody uses it, does not qualify it as a real standard. To be honest, I really *do* prefer the OpenDocument format, standardised by OASIS. There are several word processors that do support this document format.
Surely it does not matter what format a working group uses to do its work as long as the group actually manages to do the work? (Note that I differentiate the publication of versions for public comments and as actual standards recommendations; those are fixed documents and as such should be PDF documents, the PDF format having a very good record of readability across deployments.)
In other words, as long as we on the group can cope with Word, we're fine to use it for our drafts. Switching document formats *now* would be a bad move!
c) Word is obviously inconsistent in itself (is this really new info?), see this funny hyperlink example. Other examples are different document formatting depending on the printer used (and fonts available on the system), etc.
Is this a critical issue in a draft? Is there any part of the specification of JSDL that depends on the layout of the content upon the page? I'd hope not...
d) Using Word documents forces every author to use Word as well. This incurs substantial costs on all participants. While this is usually of a lesser issues for larger companies (who do have Word licenses anyway) private persons (who should be attracted by *really* open standardisation groups as well) are barred out except they invest in software. I find this quite ironic.
e) Interoperability (may also be seen as a subtopic of d) is an issue here. People prefer different platforms for software development. Now, as everybody knows, Word is *NOT* available for i.e. Linux. [Personal rant: Why bother, there are tons of way more productive alternatives available!] So you force people to actively *buy* Windows (or, preferably, Mac OS X) *and* Word.
Does anyone have a LaTeX style file or class that produces documents compliant with the GGF document formatting rules? If anyone was to work with anything other than word (the ability to import and export word docs is fairly common among word processors on Linux IIRC) I'd have to suggest that the only sane thing to use is a format that is known to be ultra stable and which produces very high quality output indeed. By contrast, switching to OpenDoc as you suggested given the current state of support for the format within Word (which, like it or not, is what a fair number of us use) would impose significant costs of its own. The advantages of LaTeX are that virtually everyone who has ever produced an academic paper has come into contact with it, and the format is known to be practically stable across long periods of time (decades...)
All of which is completely moot for this working group. What triggered this rant?
Donal.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr A. Stephen McGough http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~asm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Coordinator, London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London, Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-8409 fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 20 Oct 2005, at 10:54, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Michel Drescher wrote:
I am not concerned of copyright, I am concerned of the following: a) hidden, historic text fragments people may unleash (un) intentionally [see several issues where highly sensitive political documents unleashed that correct data has been changed to incorrect contents to suite the political party. Use Google to search for hidden historic content in Word documents.]
Since the document is still a draft, I'd imagine that the fact that it is in a format suitable for drafts would not be a major issue. I would expect it to be published as a PDF when it goes up on the list of public documents; that's just a mechanical format change. On the other hand, tools for editing PDF documents are much less common in practice than tools for editing Word documents.
Especially if a document is changing over time, its (hidden!) history may be relevant to other people. While this is of less concern in a standards working group, it still remains an issue.
b) We are (beware, I am wearing my GGF hat) a *standards* group. The Word document format in itself is not standardised. The fact that almost everybody uses it, does not qualify it as a real standard. To be honest, I really *do* prefer the OpenDocument format, standardised by OASIS. There are several word processors that do support this document format.
Surely it does not matter what format a working group uses to do its work as long as the group actually manages to do the work? (Note that I differentiate the publication of versions for public comments and as actual standards recommendations; those are fixed documents and as such should be PDF documents, the PDF format having a very good record of readability across deployments.)
In other words, as long as we on the group can cope with Word, we're fine to use it for our drafts. Switching document formats *now* would be a bad move!
Actually, it *does* matter. By publishing Word doc versions of a draft that is downloadable on the GGF website, even passive readers/ followers of a working group are forced to use Word. I think, generally, it is no additional burden to pass the Word doc (sic!) between those people who generally have the pen, and publish publicly available PDF versions even of the drafts on the net. If need be, I'll do that. Mac OS has built-in, very powerful PDF conversion.
c) Word is obviously inconsistent in itself (is this really new info?), see this funny hyperlink example. Other examples are different document formatting depending on the printer used (and fonts available on the system), etc.
Is this a critical issue in a draft? Is there any part of the specification of JSDL that depends on the layout of the content upon the page? I'd hope not...
Consider this just as an error prevention. Those kind of errors quickly creep in.
d) Using Word documents forces every author to use Word as well. This incurs substantial costs on all participants. While this is usually of a lesser issues for larger companies (who do have Word licenses anyway) private persons (who should be attracted by *really* open standardisation groups as well) are barred out except they invest in software. I find this quite ironic. e) Interoperability (may also be seen as a subtopic of d) is an issue here. People prefer different platforms for software development. Now, as everybody knows, Word is *NOT* available for i.e. Linux. [Personal rant: Why bother, there are tons of way more productive alternatives available!] So you force people to actively *buy* Windows (or, preferably, Mac OS X) *and* Word.
Does anyone have a LaTeX style file or class that produces documents compliant with the GGF document formatting rules? If anyone was to work with anything other than word (the ability to import and export word docs is fairly common among word processors on Linux IIRC) I'd have to suggest that the only sane thing to use is a format that is known to be ultra stable and which produces very high quality output indeed. By contrast, switching to OpenDoc as you suggested given the current state of support for the format within Word (which, like it or not, is what a fair number of us use) would impose significant costs of its own. The advantages of LaTeX are that virtually everyone who has ever produced an academic paper has come into contact with it, and the format is known to be practically stable across long periods of time (decades...)
I'd love to switch to LaTeX...
All of which is completely moot for this working group. What triggered this rant?
I know I am late with the more general issues. First off, I had the impression that Andreas intended to publish the Word version. This was the initial trigger. The rest was caused by me still acting like Don Quixote fighting the wind mills. Who volunteers being my Sancho Pansa? :-) Cheers, Michel
Obviously as Steve said this whole thread is out of scope but there are two statement that need replies/clarification:
Actually, it *does* matter. By publishing Word doc versions of a draft that is downloadable on the GGF website, even passive readers/ followers of a working group are forced to use Word.
If someone really wanted to read the spec and couldn't read the Word file I am sure they would be motivated enough to ask. Noone has ever asked me for a pdf version so I never bothered to convert and upload one more file. I would be willing to do so if that's what participants wanted. (Easy to say now since we are done with this doc. :-)
First off, I had the impression that Andreas intended to publish the Word version. This was the initial trigger.
Andreas (or anyone else from this group for that matter) cannot officially publish anything because Andreas is not the GGF Editor. AFAIK the GGF Editor wants editable files (Word I think) submitted to the GGF Editor tracker and what the GGF Editor wants the GGF Editor gets! Andreas
I have re-submitted JSDL 1.0 draft 25 to the GGF Editor. (Draft 24 fixed the link problem that Michel mentioned. Draft 25 has all changes accepted.) This draft will now go to a GFSG review and if approved will be published as a Proposed Recommendation. I will let you know how things progress. Thanks to all who contributed. Andreas Andreas Savva wrote:
Draft 23, incorporating some minor edits agreed at the last teleconference, is on Gridforge. If there are no additional comments by this Friday (10/21) I will be submitting it back to the GGF Editor.
The draft https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/draft-ggf-jsdl-spec/en...
The schemas: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl.xsd/en/15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl-posix.xsd/en/4
The public comment forum: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=552
Folks, We've been made aware of a minor discrepancy in the jsdl schema which we'd like to fix even at this late point. Briefly, the schema defines extension attributes (xsd:anyAttribute) as processContents="lax" but not the extension elements (xsd:any). It should be made consistent and we think that both of these should be processContents="lax". In conjunction with this schema change, for consistency, we'll be changing a statement in Section 7, paragraph 2, from "MUST be supported" to "SHOULD be supported." Please let me know if there is any problem with this change by end of business Monday. Andreas Andreas Savva wrote:
I have re-submitted JSDL 1.0 draft 25 to the GGF Editor. (Draft 24 fixed the link problem that Michel mentioned. Draft 25 has all changes accepted.)
This draft will now go to a GFSG review and if approved will be published as a Proposed Recommendation. I will let you know how things progress.
Thanks to all who contributed. Andreas
participants (4)
-
A S McGough -
Andreas Savva -
Donal K. Fellows -
Michel Drescher