"A Version in this formal sense must be represented textually by a numeric string composed of digits [0-9] and period (".") corresponding to any of the approved lexical models (#.#, e.g. 1.0; #.##, e.g. 1.01; #.#.#, e.g. 1.2.1; ##.#, e.g. 10.1). Use of any other pattern for a Version identifier must be negotiated with the TC Administration"
To me this sound like instead of "version 01" (as above), we could label it "version 1.1.1".
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This implies that we manage PLCSlib as 3 separate configuration items/
1) PSM
2) PSM reference data
3) Templates - I am assuming that this would include DEXs, Model usage guides, OASIS ref data
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I suggested the split beeing;
m= PSM version
n= template-pack version
o= RD-pack version
But how to split should depend on how discrete they are, i.e. to identify packs which could change without a direct need to change the others.
My split is based on the idea that;
- new RD could be added without the need to modify templates and PSM (e.g. 1.1.1 becomes 1.1.2)
- new Templates could be added witout the need to modify the PSM, but probably the RD (e.g. 1.1.2 becomes 1.2.3 (or possibly 1.2.2))
- when the PSM is modified, both Templates and RD will too (e.g. 1.2.3 becomes 2.3.4)
Possibly the PSM RD should be in the "m" group, but it could be a good idea to keep the RD together in one pack.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
We should separate the discussion into:
1) What are the things that we want to publish as separate packages.
2) How are they to be formally identified in accordance with OASIS rules.
I think that we need to agree 1) first.
My view is that we should have ONE package that includes everything.
The reasoning is that if the PSM changes, then all the dependencies must be checked to see if they still work and then released as well
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
As described above, a change to the PSM-pack would probably result in a check/modification to he two other packs.
My rationale for splitting what is publicated into three packs is that you do not need to check (and re-ballot) the PSM and Template packs when only RD is added/modified.
Another reason is to simplyfy for users to see how big impact a new release has on existing software or other implemetations.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The Acknowledgements section
needs to list the individual members of the TC who have participated (and others outside if you wish to note them) along with their companies
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Consider my earlier suggestion to label the releases; “PLCS xxxx m.n.o”
Where;
m= PSM version
n= template-pack version
o= RD-pack version
xxxx, is how we name our release. PLCS should be in it but the rest should be discussed.
OK - but ...
For OASIS ... the id and naming "shall" conform to:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html
"A Version in this formal sense must be represented textually by a numeric string composed of digits [0-9] and period (".") corresponding to any of the approved lexical models (#.#, e.g. 1.0; #.##, e.g. 1.01; #.#.#, e.g. 1.2.1; ##.#, e.g. 10.1). Use of any other pattern for a Version identifier must be negotiated with the TC Administration"
To me this sound like instead of "version 01" (as above), we could label it "version 1.1.1".
This implies that we manage PLCSlib as 3 separate configuration items/
1) PSM
2) PSM reference data
3) Templates - I am assuming that this would include DEXs, Model usage guides, OASIS ref data
I suggested the split beeing;
m= PSM version
n= template-pack version
o= RD-pack version
But how to split should depend on how discrete they are, i.e. to identify packs which could change without a direct need to change the others.
My split is based on the idea that;
- new RD could be added without the need to modify templates and PSM (e.g. 1.1.1 becomes 1.1.2)
- new Templates could be added witout the need to modify the PSM, but probably the RD (e.g. 1.1.2 becomes 1.2.3 (or possibly 1.2.2))
- when the PSM is modified, both Templates and RD will too (e.g. 1.2.3 becomes 2.3.4)
Possibly the PSM RD should be in the "m" group, but it could be a good idea to keep the RD together in one pack.
We should separate the discussion into:
1) What are the things that we want to publish as separate packages.
2) How are they to be formally identified in accordance with OASIS rules.
I think that we need to agree 1) first.
My view is that we should have ONE package that includes everything.
The reasoning is that if the PSM changes, then all the dependencies must be checked to see if they still work and then released as well
I suggest a split into three (3) packages.
As described above, a change to the PSM-pack would probably result in a check/modification to he two other packs.
My rationale for splitting what is publicated into three packs is that you do not need to check (and re-ballot) the PSM and Template packs when only RD is added/modified.
Another reason is to simplyfy for users to see how big impact a new release has on existing software or other implemetations.
Initial WD committed for discussion:
RCS file: /cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/.cvsignore,v
done
Checking in publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/.cvsignore;
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/.cvsignore,v <-- .cvsignore
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/oasis_cover.xml,v
done
Checking in publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/oasis_cover.xml;
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/oasis_cover.xml,v <-- oasis_cover.xml
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/publication_index.xml,v
done
Checking in publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/publication_index.xml;
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/publication_index.xml,v <-- publication_index.xml
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/buildbuild.xml,v
done
Checking in publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/buildbuild.xml;
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/buildbuild.xml,v <-- buildbuild.xml
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/Readme.txt,v
done
Checking in publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/Readme.txt;
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-1.00-wd01/Readme.txt,v <-- Readme.txt
initial revision: 1.1
done
(How) is the WD publication accesses through the online PLCSlib web?
The actual publications should be loaded to teh OASIS TC site and linked from the PCLSlib web (and plcsresources)
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-v1.00-wd01/oasis_cover.xml,v <-- oasis_cover.xml
new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-v1.00-wd01/oasis_cover.xml,v <-- oasis_cover.xml
new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3
done
Checking in publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-v1.00-wd01/publication_index.xml;
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-v1.00-wd01/publication_index.xml,v <-- publication_index.xml
new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5
done
restrict the set of terms to be published
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/publications/OASIS/plcs-plcslib-v1.0-wd01/publication_index.xml,v <-- publication_index.xml
new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2
Comment raised by OASIS review of PLCSlib Working Draft:
http://www.plcs.org/plcslib/publications/plcs-plcslib-v1.00-wd01/plcslib-v1.00-wd01__20130214_1536/plcslib-v1.00-wd01.htm
needs to list the individual members of the TC who have participated (and others outside if you wish to note them) along with their companies
/cvsroot/plcslib/plcslib/xsl/generate_publication/oasis_cover.xsl,v <-- oasis_cover.xsl
new revision: 1.18; previous revision: 1.17