[glue-wg] Platform_t

[Florido Paganelli]

On 06/14/13 13:11, stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>> Behalf Of JP Navarro said: I think we should discuss other
>> Enumerations and get consensus before we start publishing them, or
>> they should be labeled as DRAFT.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you want to label as DRAFT - the enumerated
> values themselves, 

no

> the publication method 

yes

> or the procedures?

yes

For these above I just need to state ' this si a draft' somewhere in the
text.

But JP suggests we should have a draft status also for the CSV files
that have:

1) values that differ from GFD147
AND
2) that we did not discuss within the group.

that is, all CSV files but ServiceType_t.csv

Since .csv files do not support comments, I need to mark their statuses
in some other way, like I explained in the previous email.

> For the
> actual values I don't think calling them drafts would make much
> sense. On one side they are constantly growing so will always be
> drafts.

Agree

> On the other hand, for values defined in the schema doc or
> which are already in use they can't just be changed arbitrarily, we
> would need a good reason and a deprecation procedure - in practice
> there could be a long period with both old and new values being
> published so it isn't something to do lightly.

Agree -- that's why we use deprecated or obsolete.

For ServiceType_t we had this discussion before, and all the
participants decided together, so I have no intention to discuss that
again for now. So that would be the only non-draft document.

Cheers,
Florido
-- 
==================================================
 Florido Paganelli
   ARC Middleware Developer - EMI Project
   System Administrator
 Lund University
 Department of Physics
 Division of Particle Physics
 BOX118
 221 00 Lund
 Office Tel: 046-2220272
 Email: florido.paganelli at REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se
==================================================