[DDI-SRG] Proprietary Record Layouts

[Pascal Heus]

Arofan:
As I understand, it requires it's own module wether it's beta or not 
right? If so, we certainly need this change.
Based on this convention however, shouldn't then RecordLayout itself get 
it's own namespace as well as a substitution of BaseRecordLayout?
*P

arofan.gregory wrote:
>
> Pascal:
>
>  
>
> The group decision was to publish this as a beta. It should definitely 
> be in its own sub-module, like the other substitutions for 
> BaseRecordLayout. If we've got it right, it will become final in the 
> next release, and the beat aspect of it will only be reflected in the 
> namespace and documentation.
>
>  
>
> Be aware that the way we have decided to handle namespace imports, and 
> the fact that this uses substitution groups, means that although it 
> will be distributed as part of the final package (and documented that 
> way) there will be no dependencies on it -- it requires logical and 
> reusable, etc., but they do not require it. This saves us from having 
> to make changes to final modules if we decide to amend this one.
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>
> Arofan
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* ddi-srg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu 
> [mailto:ddi-srg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu] *On Behalf Of *Pascal Heus
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2008 4:19 PM
> *To:* arofan.gregory at earthlink.net
> *Cc:* ddi-srg at icpsr.umich.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [DDI-SRG] Proprietary Record Layouts
>
>  
>
> Arofan:
> Will this remain in beta for the final release as well? This impact a 
> bit the documentation, help files and other tools (DeXT). What's the 
> particular reason not to publish this under PhysicalDataProduct (and 
> document it as beta)? I wouldn't qualify this as "serious" but would 
> rather avoid it unless necessary.
> thanks
> *P
>
> arofan.gregory wrote:
>
> Folks:
>
>  
>
> We agreed to package proprietary record layouts as a beta structure. I 
> am going to put this into its own sub-module, unless this seriously 
> bothers anyone, because we can't have a structure which has a 
> different release status from the rest of the release unless it is 
> discretely packaged.
>
>  
>
> I will name the module file "proprietary_recordlayout.xsd". I will 
> name the namespace: "ddi:physicaldataproduct/proprietary:3_0_Beta". 
> The standard namespace prefix will be "pr".
>
>  
>
> Comments/issues?
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>
> Arofan
>
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> DDI-SRG mailing list
> DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu <mailto:DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu>
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-srg
>   
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-srg/attachments/20080121/1d700424/attachment-0001.html