Groups - DRAFT-05-24-11-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee-1-1.doc (DRAFT-05-24-11-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee-1-1.doc) uploaded

[jeff.waters@navy.mil]

Please review these minutes from the May 24th, 2011 meeting of the IF
Subcommittee for approval at our next meeting, subject to any specified
changes. Thanks

 -- Jeff Waters

The document named DRAFT-05-24-11-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee-1-1.doc
(DRAFT-05-24-11-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee-1-1.doc) has been submitted by Jeff
Waters to the EM Infrastructure Framework SC document repository.

Document Description:
This document contains the minutes of the May 24th, 2011 meeting of the
Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee.  At this meeting, following topics
were discussed:

  
1.  TOPIC: Do we have a diagram for our new DE 2.0?  (Answer: Yes, a
diagram has been generated and uploaded. Also a cheatsheet has been
uploaded describing the elements, simple types, cardinality, and default
values. A few issues were raised in regard to these.)

2.  TOPIC: What is the current approach for appropriately constraining
SimpleFeatures for our profile purposes?  (Answer: The latest concept is to
leverage work already accomplished which has a constrained schema and
schematron rules of GML.  This will be discussed at the TC call. Although
this adds some complexity to learn the schematron, it is a well-used
technology among developers, it is consistent with the GML/ISO approach to
new profile development, and the existing work allows the schematron rules
to be applied to a shorter, simpler version of GML than the SimpleFeatures
which reduces the complexity.)

3.   TOPIC: Should we use ValueLists for describing areas, rather than just
target and source areas?  (Answer:  Well decide next time. Werner
suggested treating areas as being a choice between either using own values
from own ValueListURI or using your default values. This would treat areas
the same way we are treating DistributionStatus and DistributionType. But
Rex had concerns about whether this detail was appropriate for the routing
uses and whether this adds unneeded complexity.)

4.   TOPIC: Should we rename the DistributionType element to avoid
awkwardness of naming an element the way we name types?  (Answer: Yes.
Proposed name is DistributionKind. Other option is
DistributionCategory. Well decide for sure next time.)

View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=42444

Download Document:  
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/42444/DRAFT-05-24-11-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee-1-1.doc


PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.

-OASIS Open Administration