Thanks Jem,
I think my vote would go to publishing the Glossary as a new version (because its changes are significant) and considering an errata version of the OGSA Architecture. If nothing else it would test the intent of the "major technical fixes" option and provide precedent for future discussions.
Your proposal sounds quite reasonable to me. Thanks again, ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[ogsa-wg] Link to OGF Errata process From: Treadwell, Jem <jem.treadwell@hp.com> To: Hiro Kishimoto <hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com>, Andreas Savva <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: "Greg Newby" <newby@arsc.edu>, "Mailing List for OGSA-WG" <ogsa-wg@ogf.org> Date: 2007/07/17 2:42
All, sorry once again for the slow response... Andreas, thanks for the pointer: I've also now read through the errata guidelines. The "major technical fixes" option seems pretty broad, and might apply, but as Hiro says in his message it would need discussion and agreement with Greg and the AD's. After reading and thinking about it a couple of times it may not be a bad approach. The purpose IMHO would not be to bring it into line with the Glossary so much as with the Data Architecture document, which is due for publication soon. Both the Data document and a revised Glossary would go through the full review process, and making well-contained changes to the Architecture document, with a revision history as prescribed by the guidelines, but without a full independent review, would be reasonable. It's a question worth resolving now because the same question could apply to *any* of the sections in OGSA that corresponds with the work of another group, as it could become out of sync at any time, and an errata approach to re-syncing it without a major update would make some sense. As a matter of policy, the same approach *could* be taken with the Glossary: if a related group publishes a document that invalidates some terms in the Glossary, it would be reasonable to fix the Glossary. However, in this case there are also major changes to the Glossary for other reasons, so the errata process doesn't fit. Dave & Andreas have actions to review the changes needed to the architecture doc. If the changes are "reasonably" limited (whatever that means!) I think my vote would go to publishing the Glossary as a new version (because its changes are significant) and considering an errata version of the OGSA Architecture. If nothing else it would test the intent of the "major technical fixes" option and provide precedent for future discussions. - Jem
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andreas Savva Cc: Greg Newby; Mailing List for OGSA-WG Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Link to OGF Errata process
Andreas,
I like an option publishing the Glossary out-of-sync.
Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[ogsa-wg] Link to OGF Errata process From: Andreas Savva <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com> To: Hiro Kishimoto <hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Mailing List for OGSA-WG <ogsa-wg@ogf.org>, Greg Newby <newby@arsc.edu> Date: 2007/07/11 12:49
Hiro,
We talked about a few other options including only making those changes to the Data section that would bring it into alignment with the Glossary. I think that could easily fall in the editorial or minor technical fixes category.
Anywya, I don't really see any urgency to produce a new version of the OGSA Architecture document at this point; especially if the main trigger for it is the Glossary! At the moment I am leaning more towards the idea of publishing the Glossary out-of-sync; or even to leave it as a stable group-internal document for now. The second option might not be very nice to Jem given all the work he put in.
Andreas
Thanks Andreas,
Following up on the discussion we had on the Glossary call the
OGF Errata process is available on the OGF Editor project: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/ggf-editor The topics we've discussed at the call are; (a) Revising Data Service section (3.5 page 28-36) reflecting recent development of OGSA-data WG's data architecture document. and, (b) Adding new reference model section reflecting consolidation discussion with reference model WG.
They are obviously not either (1) Editorial fixes or (2) Minor technical fixes defined by Greg's errata process. Thus they fall in (3) Major technical fixes category.
The OGF Editor suggests two options;
there will need to be a decision whether to fix the document, or instead seek to write an updated document that will obsolete the
document. This decision will be made in cooperation with authors/ editors, the OGF Editor, the cognizant area directors, and GFSG (others as needed). Although the Editor allows errata process for Major technical fixes, I prefer to write an new version of the document since proposed modifications, (a) and (b), are improvements but not *error* at all. Just my two cents. Thanks,
Hiro Kishimoto
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ogsa-wg] Link to OGF Errata process From: Andreas Savva <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com> To: Mailing List for OGSA-WG <ogsa-wg@ogf.org> Date: 2007/07/10 14:58
Following up on the discussion we had on the Glossary call the
Hiro Kishimoto wrote: proposed old proposed
OGF Errata process is available on the OGF Editor project: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/ggf-editor
The direct link is http://forge.ogf.org/short/ggf-editor/errata
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg