[conformance] minutes from March 15 2002 Teleconference

[Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>]

Minutes of the Conformance TC: Teleconference
March 15, 2002

Attendees:
Mark Skall
(skall@nist.gov)
Chair
Lynne Rosenthal
(lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov)
Scribe
Lofton Henderson (lofton@rockynet.com)
David Marston
(David_Marston@lotus.com)
representing XSLT Conformance TC
Monica Martin (mmartin@certivo.net)

Future Meetings:

·       

None
scheduled at this time. 

Action Items for Conformance Document

·       

Lynne
to issue ballot for Committee Specification

·       

Lynne
to describe process for OASIS Standard and issue straw vote on whether to
pursue. 

Relevant documents:
Conformance
Requirements for
Specifications
document 
Issues
List

1.

      

Housekeeping
Welcome to all participating 
Apologies for the teleconference mix up. 
A voting members not present =  David S, Rik
Removal of members: Aidan has unsubscribe from the list.  
Approval of previous minutes (Feb meeting/teleconf)
Review and approval of the Agenda

2.

      

Liaison
Report

a)      W3C Quality Assurance Activity

Work has been initiated
on a Specification Guideline, which is based on our Conformance
Requirements document.  It will also describe the anatomy of a
specification, that is the use of schemata to facilitate the development
and generation of test materials.
b) XSLT Conformance TC chair has resigned.  Lofton to initiate (as
broker) a dialogue with W3C. 

3.

      

Conformance
Requirements Guideline.
No outstanding comments.

Recap:  The Conformance Requirements for Specifications document was sent to OASIS TC chairs for comment on January 14, 2002.  An announcement of the document and an invitation for public comments was in Dee Shur’s OASIS Newsletter, January 28,2002.  No comments have been received.

Initiate ballot for accepting document as a Committee
Specification.  Email ballot to commence (15-29 March or when all
voting members have voted, which ever comes first).  

4.

      

Progression
of document
If the document becomes a Committee Specification (and this is
expected)  should we pursue making it an OASIS Standard?
Discussion:  Any reason not to?  No rationale not to
pursue.  What does it mean to be an OASIS Standard?  Last Sept,
Karl Best explained the Process and what was needed to become a
standard.  It would receive more attention.  Implicit pressure
for TCs to use it. What does it mean to implement a meta-standard. 
The Process document didn’t consider meta-standards (horizontal
standards) when it required 3 implementations.  What does this mean
for a meta-standard  3 members or 3 TCs?  This isn’t clear and
until the OASIS Process document clarifies, it can mean either 3 members
or 3 TCs  we will take a broad meaning.  

Conclusion and Action:  Lynne to send email describing the
process for becoming a standard.  Also, members should start
thinking about promoting the Committee Specification to other OASIS
members, so they are aware of the document and we can determine who is
using it.  

Meeting Adjourned at 2:45pm