Re: [orms] 2008-05-07 Meeting minutes

[Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>]

Thank you Daniela.

I started to look at Kavi closely, and found Action Items page in it.
Perhaps we can use this feature to keep track of Action Items.
I got a word from Tatsuki that he is willing to manage it perhaps 
together with you.

Also, as to the action items are concerned, there are several coming 
from the f2f.
(I think some of that happend after you have left.)

They are going to be added to the Kavi action items as well.

Nat

Daniela Bourges Waldegg wrote:
>   (My apollogies - I had a bad phone connection and failed to
> recognize the voices of some of the people behind the comments)
>
>   
>> Agenda:
>> 1. Call to order
>> - Verify Minute Taker
>> - Roll Call
>> - Reminder: Online Chat Room, we need one
>>     
>
> 1. They can be useful and they're trivial to setup. Agreement to use
> OASIS room (Soaphub)
>
>   
>> 2. Reading/Approving minutes from May 1 & 2nd F2F
>>     
>
> 2.  Tony did not receive on time the minutes of the second day of F2F
> and was waiting to have minutes of both days in order to distribute
> them.
> -> There was no approving of the minutes. Item was deferred to next
> meeting.
> -> Tony will circulate minutes (potentially in two parts - day 1 and
> day 2)
> Notes:
> * Dee/Jeff  sent email with minutes of 2nd day during the call.
> ** Bill Barnhill (who took those minutes) still has trouble sending e-
> mail to the list
> * F2F meeting was adjourned at noon on Friday, May 2nd.
>
>   
>> 3. TC Logistics
>> - Reminder: Next scheduled meeting in 1 week
>>     
>
> 3. Agreement on continuing with weekly meeting until the TC decides we
> don't need them that often.
>
>   
>> 4. Issues list - Need a Issues list Editor
>>     
>
>   
>> - Actions
>> - Issues
>>     
>
> 4. Daniela volunteered for Issues list editor (list of open issues and
> actions to be taken)
> * current open issue: settle changes to charter
> * actions: see action items of today's meeting
>
>   
>> 5. Charter Discussions
>>     
> 5.a. Tony summarized the actions taken after F2F meeting:
> he asked the question to OASIS staff about how to proceed. Mary's
> recommendation was sent out to the list by Tony (in summary: the TC
> should vote to decide whether the proposed changes constitute a change
> of scope or not, and then vote on the changes themselves); Tony sent
> out a Word document, prior to today's call, with the charter and all
> the changes proposed during F2F.
> * Dorothy raised the issue whether the document sent by Tony reflects
> the agreement from the F2F
> * A request was made by Jeff to version documents in the future
>
> 5.b. Tony went through each change in the document:
> * change 1 - accepted without discussion
>
> * change 2 (introductory paragraph to problem scope proposed by Hal at
> F2F)-
> ** Dorothy raised a point about the usage of the word "solution" in
> the new paragraph - no further discussion on this point.
> ** Dorothy claims there is ambiguity with scores and values (her
> proposed change discussed later).
>
> * change 3 - accepted without discussion
>
> * change 4 (scope of work) -
> ** Tony read the proposed changed scope (initially proposed by Bill
> and ammended at F2F by the group)
> ** Frederick: what's the implication of the word calculation? - does
> wording preclude multi-valued result? Proposed  to change it to plural.
> ** Related issue: in the enumeration of deliverables, change scores
> into calculations if change of wording is approved. Agreement to first
> settle the wording of the scope and then address the deliverables.
>
> * change 4 (dates) - accepted (corrections of two typos - Decemberr
> and change 2010 to 2009)
>
> * change 5 (intended audience) - accepted without discussion
>
> 5.c. On depth discussion of change 4 - scope of work (wording issue -
> score, calculation, value...)
> ** An issue was raised by (?) about other information that needs to be
> shared in addition to reputation calculation, e.g. how reliable the
> calculation is
> *** Tony: what the framework will allow is different from what the
> specification concerns. Restrict the scope of the spec to what's doable.
> *** Point by (?): It could be only a matter of developing an
> additional schema or extending reputation value with additional
> context information.
> *** Bill: we can provide a framework for apps to define their context
> (and not define the context ourselves). A schema can describe the
> different use cases and leave the detail to implementors.
> *** Frederick: will the charter allow this approach?
> *** (?) points out that reputation calculation is a generic term
> ** Jeff made a proposal for new wording of this paragraph and sent it
> to the list
> *** Mike: it is acceptable. Is this targeting attribute certificates
> as reputation data?
> *** Dorothy: finds wording better, but there is still a lack of
> intermediary results
> *** Tony: what we specify is not everything that can be done
>
> 5.d. Discussion of Dorothy's proposed change, sent to list prior to
> today's meeting. The change is in the paragraph introduced by [change 2]
> * Change addresses Dorothy's concern wrt singularity of the word
> score, finality and applicability
> * Frederick  concerned about singularity
> * Mike points out a contradiction in the proposed text. The change
> might not fit with Jeff's proposed wording
>
>
>   
>> 6. Other business
>>     
>
> 6. none
>
>   
>> 7. Roll Call Additions
>> 8. Adjournment
>>     
>
>
> Action items:
> ----------------
> -> Dorothy and Jeff will work together on an ammended version with
> their two proposed changes
> -> Tony will update and circulate to the list prior to next meeting.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>   

-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. 
XDI.ORG Vice Chair