[ogsa-wg] Link to OGF Errata process

[Treadwell, Jem]

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 at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at 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 at jp.fujitsu.com>
> To: Hiro Kishimoto <hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Mailing List for OGSA-WG <ogsa-wg at ogf.org>, Greg Newby
> <newby at 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
> >
> > Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> >> Thanks Andreas,
> >>
> >>> Following up on the discussion we had on the Glossary call the
> proposed
> >>> 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
old
> >>> 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 at jp.fujitsu.com>
> >> To: Mailing List for OGSA-WG <ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
> >> Date: 2007/07/10 14:58
> >>
> >>> Following up on the discussion we had on the Glossary call the
> 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 at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg