VOTE: proposed EML 2.0.1 release

Tue Aug 3 13:10:43 PDT 2004

Approve.

Sorry for the delay - out on vacation.

-Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: eml-dev-admin at ecoinformatics.org [mailto:eml-dev-admin at ecoinformatics.org] On Behalf Of Matt Jones
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:52 PM
To: eml-dev
Subject: VOTE: proposed EML 2.0.1 release

Hi,

Well, after several weeks with no negative feedback on my proposal for an EML 2.0.1 release, I am now calling for a vote of all EML project
members:

[Proposal]: The EML Project should release version 2.0.1 as tagged in cvs as RELEASE_EML_2_0_1.

Legitimate responses are:

      Approve: I agree with the proposal to release
      Neutral: I don't object, but don't explicitly endorse the proposal
   Disapprove: I veto the proposal, and will provide justification

Please provide justification for any of your votes which you think might be controversial.  Please post your vote to eml-dev by Friday, July 30, 2004.  Thanks.

Matt

Member                 Vote
--------------         -----------
Tim Bergsma  	
Chad Berkley
David Blankman
Matthew Brooke
James Brunt 	
Scott Chapal 	
Corinna Gries 	
Daniel Higgins 	
Matthew Jones 	       Approve
Chris Jones 	
Peter McCartney
Ken Ramsey 	
Mark Schildhauer

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Jones                                     jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/    Fax: 425-920-2439    Ph: 907-789-0496
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) University of California Santa Barbara Interested in ecological informatics? http://www.ecoinformatics.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Jones wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In Oct/Nov of 2003 I posted a request for additional needs for an EML
> 2.0.1 release, and an announcement that we were working on such a 
> release.  You can see the original emails here:
> 
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/pipermail/eml-dev/2003-November/000885.h
> tml
> 
> Unfortunately, we got no feedback.  In the interim, things have moved 
> slowly, but we are finally ready for an EML 2.0.1 release.  This 
> proposed release contains only fixes that are backwards compatible 
> with the current 2.0.0 schema, such that any EML 2.0.0 valid document 
> will be valid under EML 2.0.1 by simply changing the namespace on the 
> root element.  This should make forward migration extremely easy for people.
>  At the same time, we have fixed a number of issues that have been 
> barriers to individuals and sites using EML for documenting their data.
>  Changes are summarized in the list of bugs included below.
> 
> I have tagged the current proposed files in CVS as "RELEASE_EML_2_0_1". 
>  Please review those files (see below for cvs instructions) and the 
> associated bugs, and provide feedback to the 
> eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org list by Friday this week.  If there are no 
> significant issues, I will call for a vote on this release a week from today.
> 
> In your review, please pay particular attention to the changes for 
> properly allowing inline data (bug 1008), the changes in access 
> control documentation that significantly alter and fix how access 
> rules are interpreted (bug 1132), and changes to the precision field 
> cardinality and documentation (bug 1124).
> 
> There are several significantly more contentious issues to be 
> addressed, and we have specifically delayed those to a future 2.1.0 
> release (which may not be backwards compatible).  So, when reviewing 
> the bugs remaining in bugzilla and considering any new features to 
> propose for 2.0.1, keep in mind that 1) it should be backwards 
> compatible to be considered, and
> 2) it should be non-controversial so that we can move on with things.  
> I think that any requests that are incompatible or controversial 
> should be targeted at the future EML 2.1.0 release rather than this one.
> 
> Thanks in advance, and looking forward to your feedback.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Changes made for EML 2.0.1
> see http://bugzilla.ecoinformatics.org for details on the bugs below)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  249: Update XSLT stylesheets for EML 2.0 modules
>  939: spelling errors for 'its' in index
>  960: parser not correctly parsing <describes> tag in additiona...
> 1008: inline element doesn't support character child
> 1017: documentation error in eml-methods
> 1031: enumeratedDomain doesn't define value order for ordinals
> 1035: Technical documentation on eml-methods has an error
> 1124: update precision field definition and cardinality
> 1129: Change temporalCoverage calendarDate type
> 1132: fix access control rule ambiguities
> 1136: kelvin conversion incorrect in unit dictionary
> 1149: BoundsGroup bounds min & max have incorrect cardinality
> 1150: documentation for KeyTypeCode is wrong
> 1151: misspelled element name
> 1153: dateTimeDomain element should be optional
> 1155: Documentation incorrect for dateTimeDomainType bounds
> 1195: tracking bug for 2.0.1 release
> 1233: dateTime formatString Documentation contains incorrect ex...
> 1529: no tag to specify how to handle mutltiple, repeated delimimeters
> 
> CVS Instructions for obtaining tagged releases
> ----------------------------------------------
> CVS allows us to mark files as a set and label the set with a "tag" so 
> that we can easily find the set again even if new changes are made to 
> the files.  I tagged the current proposed changes for EML 2.0.1 as 
> "RELEASE_EML_2_0_1".  You can obtain these files from CVS as follows.
> 
> Under the command line:
> 
> cvs co -P -r RELEASE_EML_2_0_1 eml
> 
> This checks out a new version of EML that contains only the tagged 
> files relevant to the 2.0.1 release proposal.
> 
> An equivalent command is possible in Tortoise CVS and other graphical 
> clients by providing the tag in the options to the checkout dialog box.
>  Contact me if you have difficulty with this and I will help.
> 