ebXML Joint Committee Conference Call Minutes

February 14 2002

 

Presiding:

Ian Jones

Participants:

Colleen Evans

Brian Hayes

Nikola Stojanovic

Karl Best

Dale Moberg

Philippe DeSmedt

Carol Geyer (only for a short period)

Regrets

Kathryn Breininger

Note: There was a quorum present.

 

Discussion

  1. ebXML TC meetings in Barcelona May 2002

    2. Karl explained that OASIS was working with XML Europe 2002 in Barcelona to have facilities available for TC’s to meet at low cost at the event. It was also likely to be able to hold joint meetings with some of the UN/CEFACT ebXML teams.

    IIC will unlikely be able to attend.

    Registry – not enough notice to schedule a meeting.

    CPPA – Probably not appropriate

    Messaging would consider – depends on team – timing is sensible but travel may be an issue.

    Carol explained that OASIS was running a 1-day track at the event and would still be interested in papers to present. OASIS are discussing with AAIG about doing something similar at their August meeting in Detroit. Papers on the new specifications and implementations were of the greatest value if they can be prepared and presented.

     

  2. OASIS Standards Process

A long discussion (the majority of the call) was spent on various aspects of the current process and how it could be improved. The main points of discussion were:
    1. The 4 months time frame from submission to vote starting – may be too long if the process is delivering an iterative specification.
    2. The 1 + 3 month window means any issues raised toward the end of the 3 month review cycle would cause any amendment or reissue to miss the next review cycle. This implies that resubmission may be a 6 month cycle.
    3. Once a specification is submitted it is "frozen" and can not have any changes made. Issues must either be "ignored" or the specification withdrawn and the amended version re-submitted on the next cycle.
    4. No errata process exists to issue changes to an existing specification.

Karl explained why the process was currently designed the way it is and would welcome comments and alternative process models from other standards bodies.

Some suggestions made were:
    1. Reduce the review period from 90 days to 30 or 60 to allow for re-submission of amend versions on the next quarter.
    2. Increase submission frequency from quarterly to monthly.
    3. Allow tracked and marked changes to be made to a specification during the review period so that when the vote was taken the membership was given a list of changes and reasons which had been incorporated during the review period.

 

  1. IPR issues

    2. Nothing new to discuss but it is a major concern of the board of OASIS. IPR statements on the use of SOAP are still be chased, Microsoft have made a statement available to OASIS and the messaging TC

     

  2. URNs

The use of URNs has been raised and discussed by a number of the TCs within OASIS the original use was to give each TC its own unique namespace and related facilities. Now it would be useful to use URNs to allow extensions to code lists. This raised several issues about control, maintenance, preventing duplication of UN/CEFACT work, etc.

Some one need to look at the use of URNs within OASIS and it’s specifications. Do we need a new TC to look at this? Or a sub team? (Of what? Ed.) The use of XML.ORG was suggested to be a start point where the lists should be hosted and or discussed.

This discussion ran out of time. Any suggestions.

 

Actions:

  1. Send any suggestions for modification of the standards process to Karl.
  2. Will TCs meet in Barcelon.
  3. Suggestions/ discussion on URNs
  4. The next meeting will elect a new chair to start in April (Quarterly tenure).
  5. AOB for next meeting.

 

Next Call:

March 14 (3pm EST, 12pm PST)