Re: [tm-pubsubj] F2F at XML 2003

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

*Patrick
>It seems to me that we need to have a F2F meeting at XML 2003.

>I checked charter and we don't have regular meetings defined and we do 
>need a qurom to conduct business so I am asking for PubSubj TC members to 
>indicate their open dates/times during XML 2003 to attend a meeting of the 
>PubSubj TC.

I will not  be able to attend. To allow as many people as possible to 
participate, you might want  to have one person in the meeting with a 
wireless commection, if available,  send out notes over IRC so that the 
people not at the F2F can see what is being discussed. Towards the end of 
the meeting, you could sumarize the main points that we all  need a vote 
on, and you can get feedback from the people not there in person. You will 
need 8 members at the meeting. This may not be so easy. I don't know if 
this would count as attendance though. I guess we need to check.

Of course, the best would be for somebody to sponsor a conference call 
from the hotel, but this is *very* expensive.

>1. Deliverables: What can we deliver in draft, proposal, etc., in 3 
>months, 6 months, 1 year?

Yes, Let's look at what we already have, and work on updating them, 
especially the dates, which I think we have passed already :)

PubSubj TC Deliverables

1. Published Subjects - Definitions, Requirements and Examples
Final Draft - Updated September 26, 2002 (Published May 2003)

2. Recommendations for Published Subjects Documentation Structure
Draft proposal - Updated June 27, 2002

3. Recommendations for Published Subjects Management

(Are there some suggestions on this one? What does this include?) This 
does not seem to be part of the committee specification either, but more 
of guidance, ie, best practices document. Would this include a description 
of registering published subjects in UDDI, for example? If so, then I can 
come up with a draft for this one example.

4. Recommendations for Published Subjects use (I have a clearer idea on 
this one after our discussion this week. I guess this one is for 
Bernard :))  This does not seem to be part of the Committee specification, 
but a best practice to give users guidance on how to use the committee 
specification.

I would say that the first two parts comprise the core of the committee 
specification and 3 and 4 are best practices.
Maybe this is where Bernard and I disagree.


>2. Assignments/volunteers for the deliverables in #1.
>
>However, if we make use of this mailing list we can all have a list of 
>deliverables for #1 in hand before the meeting and with some on list 
>discussion, we will already know our respective positions. (And hopefully 
>have some informal agreement on which ones should move to the fore and who 
>will be taking them on as projects.)

My points are noted above.

>The purpose of the meeting is to allow us to verify what we think is a 
>common consensus on the deliverables and to (hopefully) enlist others in 
>the work on whatever deliverables are approved by the group. Realize that 
>our personal favorites for deliverables may not get picked in the first 
>round but the answer to that is to help on those that are so we can more 
>quickly reach the ones of interest to us.

This sounds good to me, but actually, we can have a schedule of the 
release of each deliverable, but we could all be working on the parts 
concurrently, and  post drafts to the list for feedback.

Cheers,
Mary