[wg11] Re: Choice of exploder

[David Price]

Ed,

I agree it would have been better to understand all this before the CD.

FYI, the discussion topic "Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema
use (Part 28 Edition 2)" is actually a continuation of the discussion I
started back in February. Unfortunately, timing and lack of attendance at
meetings hurt having the discussion with the P28 team in person. I wasn't in
a position to understand the issues until we started the implementation
which couldn't happen until there was a somewhat stable WD. Sort of a
chicken and egg problem...

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wg11-bounces at steptools.com [mailto:wg11-bounces at steptools.com] On
> Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: 08 June 2004 18:26
> To: xmlsc4 at nist.gov; SC4 WG11
> Subject: [wg11] Re: Choice of exploder
> 
> Gerry Radack wrote:
> 
> > Could we have this discussion on a *single* exploder?
>  > Cross-posting to multiple exploders does not work very well.
>  > A lot of exploders reject messages posted by people who are not
>  > members.
> 
> thanks to the spammers.
> 
> As for useful international discussion of this topic, it sure would have
> been nice to have this discussion after Heidi posted previous working
> drafts last August and November.  As of 30 April, ISO CD 10303-28.2 is
> out for ballot.  This discussion can no longer lead to any result that
> doesn't show up in a National Body comment.
> 
> This is not a WG3 work item.  I have no current interest in WG3 work
> items, and I will not subscribe to that exploder.  This is a WG11 work
> item, and the entire technical scope of the standard relates only to
> WG11 concerns.  That logic would lead to discussion on the WG11
> exploder: wg11 at steptools.com.
> 
> All previous technical work on Part 28 (v1 and v2) was discussed on
> xmlsc4 at nist.gov, but this work item is no longer in technical
> development.  We are now (finally?) discussing REQUIREMENTS for v2 that
> arise from the larger SC4 community.  That is why I think the WG11
> exploder is more appropriate.
> 
> My national body has an email exploder for U.S. comments on Part 28.
> Those of us who are U.S.-based should probably take our discussion
> there.  (We only have until the end of next week to formulate a ballot
> position.)  Other NBs might also find it useful to adopt a similar
> approach.
> 
> [OBTW, the "xmlsc4 at nist.gov" exploder kindly erases all cc's so that
> ReplyAll to an xmlsc4 message only goes to the xmlsc4 exploder, just as
> Reply (to the author only) also goes to the exploder.  This is a
> "feature" of NIST exploders, approved by our CIO Council, so that staff
> don't get redundant messages. ;-)]
> 
> -Ed
> 
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark at nist.gov
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8264                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8264                FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> 
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>   and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wg11 mailing list
> wg11 at steptools.com
> http://lists.steptools.com/mailman/listinfo/wg11