[osis-core] Getting OSIS out the door

[Steven DeRose]

At 07:19 AM -0400 05/07/02, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>Steve,
>
>List looks good to me!
>
>Could we try to decide on the numbered issue list by this coming 
>Saturday? (Feel free to post solutions for any particular issue that 
>catches your eye.)


How about I go through it and paste in a couple other issues I've 
got, add numbering, and add suggested resolutions for the remaining 
issues (I'll highlight them somehow so we can all tell they're just 
suggested....). Then I'll post back to the list and we can go from 
there.

Can everybody read the existing issue list in the meantime so we can 
just crank through the issues? Maybe a concall to do so? Also, send 
me any additional issues so I can add them.

Of the list below, 5 seems to be moving great, and the above proposal 
should help with 1-3.

So, any thoughts on what we should call this (agendum 4, below)?

Also, did we decide on a formal namespace name?


Has Kirk been added to this list yet? Kirk Lowery <klowery@wts.edu>

S


>
>I can devote Sunday to a better rough draft of the schema as I would 
>like to have us in bug-fixing mode by next Monday. I think we need 
>to publish the 1.1 schema by  17 May 2002 or the following Monday, 
>20 May, and think that either one is doable.
>
>(I will out most of Thursday - Saturday of this week and leave for 
>Spain on the 16th, late in the day, so I would like to get as much 
>done while I have a fairly good connection as possible.)
>
>Looking better all the time guys!
>
>Patrick
>
>Steven DeRose wrote:
>
>>OK, we're looking decent. Let me throw out a few agenda items that 
>>I can think of that we need to do in the very near future:
>>
>>(Numbers are for reference, not priority or anything meaningful)
>>
>>1. Review the issue list (forwarded by Patrick to list at 03:08 PM 
>>-0400 05/06/02), and decide any issues not yet listed as decided. 
>>Most of those I probably just didn't remember to write down a 
>>consensus that was actually reached).
>>
>>2. Add any other issues
>>
>>3. Assign numbers to the issues (generally a good idea for 
>>reference). I thought of trying to organize them somehow first, but 
>>that seems unimportant.
>>
>>4. Decide on what to call the schema we publish at this point. I 
>>think I'm in favor of something like "1.1 Proposed Recommendation".
>>
>>5. Finalize the schema and post it to the list and to all attendees.
>>
>>6. Write the actual spec to explain what all the stuff is.
>>
>>7. Get the tech writer to generate the tutorial and reference.
>>
>>8. Organize a web area for this with sections such as:
>>    Schemas, sample documents, conversion tools, stylesheets, software.
>>    And fill with whatever we've got: derived DTD packaged with emacs PSGML;
>>    CSS and instructions for loading into IE and NS; etc.
>>
>>9. Pick a namespace URI for ourselves
>>
>>
>>I think at that point we'll be in pretty good shape on the first 
>>release of OSIS.
>>
>>Anything major I'm leaving out?
>>
>>How soon do y'all think we can get through that stuff?
>>
>>s
>
>
>--
>Patrick Durusau
>Director of Research and Development
>Society of Biblical Literature
>pdurusau@emory.edu


-- 

Steve DeRose -- http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chair, Bible Technologies Group -- http://www.bibletechnologies.net
Email: sderose@speakeasy.net
Backup email: sderose@mac.com, sjd@stg.brown.edu