Hi:
First off, apologies if some of the points I propose here seem to partly contradict previous posts – but it has been a necessarily iterative process between the formal constraints of the OASIS TC Process and achieving our work objectives that I discussed in some detail again with John today – so, here goes…
Our constraints:
- ‘Multi-part” deliverables must nonetheless be advanced as a single batch through the TC process, making it difficult to work and advance separate pieces independently.
- When we want to start formally using the required OASIS deliverable templates, we have to state from the outset the type of deliverable, name, id, etc. Best practice: think carefully and try to get it right first time, fit for purpose
- We want to achieve a series of interlocking work items whilst taking some further and faster forward than others.
I would therefore like to suggest the following work plan:
- First deliverable: instead of a ‘TGF Core Framework’, we create and approve a “TGF Primer” – consisting largely of the ‘first level’ stuff I proposed in Part I of the currently--titled ‘TGF Core’: this deliverable would be broad, not necessarily too deep, covering the whole of the essence of the work we are doing – it doesn’t necessarily have to be advanced to an OASIS committee specification or standard, but the fact that it is titled ‘Primer’ gives a clear message as to its intended use:
o Chris works on this following tomorrow’s working session and aims to have a rough informal draft by end of next week
o for discussion at Feb 17 TC meeting;
o If this conforms with general expectations, I would ‘register’ this to be started as a ‘Committee Specification Draft’ (in OASIS formal terminology) and transfer any draft into the formal template;
o We would publish this to list and open an ‘issues list’ allowing members to comment and raise editing and conceptual issues;
o Editors will look at each issue submitted and propose new ‘dispositions of text’ (using OASIS speak)
o Draft and issues list would be discussed at March meeting and if sufficient consensus, be adopted then – if not, further cycles until adopted
o ‘Adopted’ means (in formal process terms) agreeing the text as a ‘Committee Specification Draft’ (CSD)
o This ‘Primer’ would mark a ‘baseline’ that we can work from for other deliverables and provide a reference for our organisations ‘marketing’ and promotional work
o The Primer CSD can stay in that ‘state’ as long as we want – it can be put out for public review, it can be further re-drafted internally, or we can simply sit on it for the time being
- Next deliverables: The three ‘Management Frameworks’ (Business, Customer and Channel) and (and this is a new suggestion) a fourth, a TGF Reference Model, that would include the terminology, conceptual relationships and some (tbd) level of formal or semi-formal modelling
o As above, we start work on each of these four as informal drafts, with sub-editors assigned to each and aim to get a rough draft to the TC as soon as possible – maybe on same time schedule as for Primer but as they are de-linked, it gives us flexibility to move the first forward asap as a baseline marker;
o I am essentially proposing pulling parts II and IV from the first draft of the current ‘TGF Core’ document out and making that a distinct deliverable – this will also be more consistent with our charter that states unequivocally that the TGF will include a Reference Model
o Once we’re happy, again would register these four as starting the process towards CSD, and follow same process;
o We should aim at the latest for the March TC to agree to start these on the formal CSD track;
o Unlike the Primer, however, our objective for these four is to advance them to approved OASIS Committee Specification and, if conformance issues are dealt with, to full OASIS Standard;
- Other deliverables: as and when possible, start drafting content for two possible ‘Committee Notes’ that cover, respectively, “SOA” and “tools and models for the business management framework” – others can follow as material appears and TC agrees:
o Similar process to above – first rough draft; when TC is happy, register as work products to follow the non-standards track, to become ‘Committee Notes’
If others are agreeable, it is in this direction that we will try to work tomorrow and get some first rough drafts out to the TC in the coming weeks. First target would be to have a rough-hewn text of the TGF Primer in plenty of time for discussion at next TC. Game on!
Cheers,
Peter
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