[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?
John, Peter
I'm going to be in a plane to Australia when the Friday
meeting is held, so thought I should give my view on all this ahead of the
meeting.
Basically, I like Peter's initial proposal - and I
worry that John's proposal of initially just publishing the "core" will be too
lightweight for people to engage with meaningfully. I much prefer the idea
of a single but multi-part standards track document called the TGF, which
consists as Peter suggests of the Core document, and the top-level Business,
Channels and Customer Frameworks (with ideally too one on SOA, drawing on
existing OASIS work in this area). I think this is doable on the March
time frame, and will be more helpful and meaningful than just focusing on the
Core document.
Once we have taken a view on this, I am happy to take
up the pen from Peter and get a new draft round early next week. I have
started work on this already. In addition to any structural changes that
may flow from the call, I am currently aiming to do 4 things in the next
version:
It would be a real help if John or Peter could let me
have a quick note with the conclusions of the meeting soon afterwards, as I'll
then be able to pick it up when I stop-over in Hong Kong, so will be able to
reflect the meeting's views in further work on the second leg of the trip and
then over the weekend.
Regards,
Chris Parker Managing Partner, CS Transform Ltd, +44 7951 754 060 From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 02 February 2011 10:24 To: peter@peterfbrown.com; 'TGF TC List ' Cc: 'Robin Cover' Subject: RE: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many? Peter I think you are getting ahead of
yourself a little, but let’s discuss on Friday. The way I see things are
as follows: We have agreed that we should
aim for a very quick baseline in March, that being a TGF Committee Draft
Specification v1.0. As such that has to be a stand-alone spec with
no references out to other TC deliverables that have not yet been
produced. So this would be just the Core Framework that talks about the
other Management Frameworks and possible Committee Notes but they are only
described in broad detail, perhaps just in the Glossary.
Once we have that v1.0 agreed we
can then move immediately onto v2.0 which becomes possibly the multi-part spec
you refer to below, ie includes the completion of the other Management
Frameworks and possibly some CNs. Whether we choose to deal with them as
separate CSs/CNs or just single ones is to be
determined. So for now let’s take it one
step at a time and just order a single CS template for the first deliverable –
the Core Framework, get that put to bed in March and not confuse ourselves with
the other documents at this stage. We will do well just to get the Core
Framework completed and agreed by March I would suggest. As I said, let’s discuss on
Friday and then you can order the required template(s) from
Robin. John From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] On second
thoughts… I’m holding off on my
recommendation until at least after Friday’s discussion – there may be an
argument (John’s point about “quick wins”) for having distinct deliverables that
can be moved forward and approved as separate and independent
entities. Peter From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Hi: I have now loaded
to the document work area, a series of skeleton outlines using what existing
material is available from the various contributions so far. SO we
have: 1 – TGF Core
Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable) 2 – Business
Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track
deliverable) 3 – Customer
Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track
deliverable) 4 – Channel
Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track
deliverable) 6 – Tools and
Models for the Business Management Framework (proposed Non-Standards-Track
deliverable) I have checked
with TC Administration what the procedures are for multi-part documents and they
have pointed me to the following excerpt from the TC Admin Handbook at http://docs.oasis-open.org/TChandbook/Reference/WPQualityRequirements.html
(my highlighting added): Multi-Part Work Products A Multi-Part Work Product may consist
of: §
a single prose document, §
a single prose document and one or more related files such as schema,
dtds, classes, etc. §
multiple prose documents, §
multiple prose documents and one or more related
files. The Work Product, even if multi-part, must have a single name and
version number, and must be approved at each stage by a single Work Product
Ballot. That is, the constituent parts cannot advance independently of each
other or stand on their own. In the case of multiple prose documents, there should be a single
primary prose document that then refers to the distinct parts. Each distinct part should clearly state that it is part of the Work
Product and refer to both the top-level document and any other related prose
documents. FOR EXAMPLE The Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.2
Work Product consists of four prose documents, with the first being the
primary: §
Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version
1.2 §
Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version
1.2 Part 1: OpenDocument Schema §
Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version
1.2 Part 2: Recalculated Formula §
Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version
1.2 Part 3: Packages In light of this,
I would propose to proceed as follows: -
We open a request for a
standards-track deliverable entitled the “Transformational Government Framework
(TGF); -
then create the three management
framework documents as parts in accordance with those
guidelines; -
we advance the package as
required and decide at any time to munge the four documents into one in
accordance with the rules For the Committee
Notes, I am less sure, now that I have had an opportunity to go through existing
material. a)
I think that there
is a case for a substantive piece on SOA - although we don’t have
much primary material of our own at present, we can certainly refer to and do a
synthesis of the most important documents from the SOA reference model and
reference architecture framework; b)
I also think there is sufficient
and distinct material to do a Note covering the tools and models for Business
Management – I have already submitted such a skeleton. c)
I currently have no material
(nor a clear picture in my mind) of what could/should go in to a Committee Note
covering tools and models for Customer Management, particular as material
including the ‘Concentrix’ and identity management are already included in the
Customer Management Framework. d)
I do not yet see a clear case
for keeping the tools and models parts of Channel Management separate from the
main Channel Management Framework and, given their nature, would probably be
better placed in the main Channel Management Framework
deliverable So I’d suggest
that we start two Committee Notes for a) and b) above and hold off on the other
two for the time being. If there is no
push-back on this approach, I will start the process with TC Admin to get hold
of the formal templates and naming schemes for our docs. Regards, Peter F Brown Independent Consultant Transforming our
Relationships with Information Technologies Blog pensivepeter.wordpress.com LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter Twitter @pensivepeter P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles,
CA 90049, USA Tel:
+1.310.694.2278 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]