Obsolescence of 1.0
Paul Asman-FRBNY 14:12, 14 June 2007 (BST) I see that Steve has removed 1.0 from the main documents section of the RSS-CB main page. I think that this is premature. 1.0 is currently the only production release, and it is the release to which existing feeds conform. Someone examining our feeds who wishes to see the specification should find it easily. On the other hand, I don't feel so strongly about this that I would change Steve's removal without general consent. Hence this post.
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 14:47, 14 June 2007 (BST): I figured agreement to take on the changes in 1.1 meant there was no need to wait for that, especially because I know at least one central bank is currently perusing the spec looking to implement feeds right now. The less confusion the better. All the important 1.0 stuff is still fairly reachable. Still, if someone wanted to put them back, I don't mind.
The 1.0 spec etc. can still be found on the main page - http://cbwiki.net/wiki/index.php/RSS-CBMain#Obsolete_documents
Christine Sommo-FRBNY 20:17, 14 June 2007 (BST) Come on Steve. Name names. Who is the one central bank?
What's of bigger concern to me is how to notify people who may not check this regularly that such significant changes are happening and how to keep the motivation strong in people who just made sense of the now obsolete version. I know of a central bank (minor, though it is) that recently adopted the old standard for some of its feeds that are in development. When I looked at their code, I noticed that they were not compliant with version 1.0 because we had just made changes. Now, they'll have even more work to do.
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 09:37, 15 June 2007 (BST): I guess that's the problem with implementing against any spec, especially one so new and one driven by a wiki rather than a big committee. But I would guess that now there are no more major controversies and it should remain pretty stable (except maybe statistics, I don't know about that). I'm certainly planning to stop making dozens of edits every day. :-)
But I think the premise Paul eventually worked on was that 1.1 needed to come one day, so better now than later, when even more people are on-board. I would agree with that. And the migration is not too difficult.
Here I ask about whether a moratorium on wiki changes might be suitable.
Information for Public Affairs
San 18:39, 22 May 2007 (BST)I've been asked to provide some background on RSS-CB and the data feeds we're about to publish. I plan to liberally borrow (read: copy) passages from this site to pass along for the PA folks to use with the press. I will make sure that the site is properly attributed as the source of the text but hadn't planned to name any individuals. Is that okay with everyone?
Paul Asman-FRBNY 21:24, 22 May 2007 (BST) Okay here.
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 08:25, 23 May 2007 (BST): OK here. Sounds a lot easier for you too!
Christine Sommo-FRBNY 14:34, 23 May 2007 (BST) Okay!
Paul Asman-FRBNY 10:36, 25 April 2007 (ADT) At a meeting last week in Dallas of RSS-CB participants, an articulated rationale was sought. Here are some ideas I jotted down.
- RSS-CB uses RSS, for which the rationale is well-established.
- RSS-CB recognizes the increased importance of automated use of the web. RSS-CB offers a specification that meets the needs both of people and of machines, an increasingly large component of our constituency.
- RSS-CB guarantees the format in which automated process receive its information.
- RSS-CB positions central bank web sites for the future, when our web sites will be integrated into business processes, and when web surfing becomes a secondary use.
- Given that automated processes require consistently formatted data, RSS-CB gives central banks the opportunity to be the source of those data, rather than ceding the responsibility to others.
- RSS-CB is already in use, and central bank customers understand how to accept information in its format.
Signing the comments - use tildes
Timo Laurmaa-BIS 07:07, 25 June 2006 (ADT)
Maybe we should always sign our comments on the discussion pages by beginning with four tildes (username and timestamp)...
Butch Easton-FRB Has anyone given any futher thought how to handle the concept of event. I remember we discussed this at length in Ottawa and I believe we decided that this would need to be custom written.
San 17:28, 29 June 2006 (ADT) I thought that Suzanne was looking into this more with her metadata contacts.
User:Suzanne LeBlanc-Bank of Canada 10:13 30 June 2006 I will be looking into this further with my metadata con
Suzanne LeBlanc-Bank of Canada 16:51, 17 July 2006 (ADT) I have looked into this. We will have to create our own custom elements for the concept of events.
Butch Easton-FRB Having gone through this question at the Board in the past on numerous occasions, the Board can not copyright content that goes on the web (or pretty much anything else). I'm not sure we need a copyright section in the standard. Opinions?
Paul Asman-FRBNY 08:44, 30 June 2006 (ADT) The New York Fed likewise does not assert copyright. (As I understand U.S. law, the production of any written work carries implicit copyright with it anyway.) The question goes to Brent, Noe, and Timo - are you okay with the elimination of the copyright statement?
Brent Eades-Bank of Canada: 09:25, 30 June 2006 (ADT): Well -- the current copyright statement is a slightly revised version of the one found in the RSS 1.0 spec. That reads, "Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute the RDF Site Summary 1.0 Specification and its accompanying documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted in perpetuity, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph appear in all copies"; where "the above copyright notice" reads "Copyright © 2000 by the Authors".
So -- since our own spec is in fact a modification of the RSS 1.0 spec, it could be argued that we are obliged to retain the phrase "Copyright © 2000 by the Authors". But that becomes slightly nonsensical, because "the Authors" are by now no longer the RSS 1.0 authors, they're us. Which I doubt was the intent of the RSS 1.0 authors. (I have to suspect they didn't think this through too well.)
Perhaps a compromise is to replace the copyright statement with something like "This document is derived from the 1.0 specification", or whatever.
Butch Easton-FRB 09:45, 30 June 2006 (ADT) I like the derived from language - seems to be a good compromise.
Paul Asman-FRBNY 09:52, 30 June 2006 (ADT) I'm okay with it also, although I'd change 'is derived from' to 'is derivative upon'.
I think that 'modification' in the context of copyright implies a more-or-less wholesale copying. In any case, the RSS license agreement reads more like a license for open source code than a specification.
I think of our spec as an extension of the RSS spec, rather than a modification, in which case I don't see the obligation to continue to post the copyright notice.
Brent Eades-Bank of Canada 10:06, 30 June 2006 (ADT): I'd tend to say ours is both a modification and an extension -- a modification in that we're putting our own spin on certain elements of the core RSS 1.0 spec (e.g., forbidding textfields); and an extension in that we're making some non-core components mandatory (Dublin Core namespaces, etc.)
But either way, I agree with Paul that the intent of the RSS 1.0 copyright statement was presumably to denote an "open-source license" status to the spec. I note that the Apache Software License and the MIT License, for example, use very similar language regarding the "above copyright notice".
So -- I'm good with 'is derivative upon'.
Paul Asman-FRBNY 11:58, 30 June 2006 (ADT) I think I've solved this. We're using RSS 1.0, and so according to the license we should quote their copyright. I've changed our spec to do just that - quote their copyright, as theirs, within quotation marks.
I thought of adding a sentence that we don't assert copyright ourselves, but then thought better of it. Let's say nothing, and have (at least in the U.S.) the implicit protection that saying nothing brings.
Noe Palmerin-Banco de Mexico 23:42, 14 July 2006 (ADT) I apologize by the late answer. I'm okay with the elimination of the copyright statement so we don't need it. I concur with Paul's solution.
Dan Chall-FRBNY 13:13, 2 August 2006 (EDT) As the last to join the party, I concur. Assertion of non-assertion may be more problematic than simple non-assertion. Just wondering if there's an issue involving assertion of copyright with regard to the subject of the feeds? Do we need to specify an element to cover that? .... See the talk page of the User Guide where this issue is raised.