FW: [uoml-x] Fwd: ISO PAS program path, issues

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Because observers receive list posts, it seems natural to reply to them.

My apologies.  The appropriate place is the comments list. 

For the record, here is what I sent to the list that will not appear there.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 11:12
To: 'allison shi'; 'stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com'
Cc: 'uoml-x@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'James Bryce Clark'
Subject: RE: [uoml-x] Fwd: ISO PAS program path, issues

Allison,

I notice that your forwarding of the note from Jamie did not go to the list,
and the attachments that Jamie provided are not included in any of the
material on the list.

I have some thoughts about conformance language and conformance clauses that
might be important for JTC1, but I would like to see what Jamie provided
first.

 - Dennis

PS: Conformance language and identification of implementations may go hand
in hand, depending on what minimum support/conformance is. 

PPS: The only concerns I know about ODF (which moved through JTC1 to IS
26300 without difficult as far as I know) has to do with a disconnect around
maintenance and responsiveness to defect reports, something that the OASIS
ODF TC is working on conquering and that there is OASIS-JTC1 discussion
about.  It is probably not an ODF-unique situation, although more likely
with larger standards than small, tightly-constructed ones.  

-----Original Message-----
From: allison shi [mailto:allison_shi@sursen.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 01:36
To: stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com
Cc: uoml-x@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark
Subject: Re: [uoml-x] Fwd: ISO PAS program path, issues

I think Stephen is right, we do have the uoml-schema as listed at:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/uoml-x/v1.0/cs01/uoml-schema-cs01.xsd,
I will ask for putting it to the right place.

Regarding the maintenance issue, I think we want to keep it within
OASIS and  UOML-X TC takes responsible for it.

Regarding the three questions Jamie raised in his message to Members
of the UOML TC:

1. OASIS quality and process rules for submissions.
for more evidence of maturity, if the requirement of "statement of
use" from OASIS changes to five,  Yes, we can provide more "statement
of use" by our clients, including government users, the only problems
is they are not OASIS members. As you know there are still not a lot
of OASIS members in China. Also does it apply to UOML since we had
already been voted to be OASIS standard?

2. JTC1 votes for the substantial quality of UOML.
As Stephen mentioned, we do have a schema related to UOML, we can
provide it to ISO. UOML is XML-based, and XML is a way for UOML to
send and receive instructions. Conformance to UOML means to conform
UOML implemented schema, and all the semantics which we defined in the
Specification.

In practice, there are some applications which based UOML schema and
follow the UOML semantics, then they can conform UOML.

Those are my understanding, can anyone else share your thought on this?

3.JTC1 issues with shared control and maintenance.

Jamie, you are right. OASIS UOML-X TC wishes to continue to develop
and maintain the specification. Since UOML is an interface standard,
not like ODF a data structure standard, so we expect that UOML
standard is not going to have a lot of changes. It will help us to
solve the maintenace issue between JTC1 and OASIS. Of course, other
than that we will also follow what ever JTC1 and OASIS's rules about
this issue.

SO to answer Jamies 's question:
--If the UOML-X TC plans to contine:
Yes, we do.
--If not, what we can say to JTC1 about individual experts, and future
plans for UOML;
Not a issue since we are going to continue.
--If it would be accepable to the TC memebers to let JTC1 do the
specification maintenace after the UOML TC ends.
If in the future UOML TC ends, I think we should let JTC1 to do the
maintenace job. What do you guys think?

Best rgds,
Allison Shi
co-chair, UOML-X TC

[ .. ]
> 2009/1/15 allison shi <allison_shi@sursen.com>:
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > There I forward Jamie Clark's message regarding our TC's UOML Part 1 v1.
0
> > submitting to ISO by using OASIS PAS process.
> >
> > There are two attached files, please review them and open to discuss.
> > Any questions, concerns, and answers to Jamie's questions are welcomed
to
> > post here. If necessary, a TC meeting will be held afterward.
> >
> > Best rgds,
> >
> > Allison Shi
> > co-chair, UOML-X TC
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> > Date: 2009/1/15
> > Subject: ISO PAS program path, issues
> > To: allison shi <allison_shi@sursen.com>, Alex Wang
<alexwang@sursen.com>
> > Cc: laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org, ÁõÃ÷¾ê LMJ <liumingjuan@sursen.com>
> >
> >
> > Alex and Allison:
> >
> > I have sent two attachments.  The first is a draft of the 'explantory
> > report' that we would send to JTC1 with a UOML submission.
> > The second generally explains the JTC1 issues for UOML.  Both are
suitable
> > for sharing with your TC, if you like.
> >
> > These drafts contain three questions, and we have one additional
concern.
> >  We would like to discuss them with you directly by telephone or Skype.
May
> > I suggest Beijing Friday morning (our late Thursday afternoon) or
Beijing
> > Tuesday morning (our late Monday afternoon)?  Some other time that you
> > suggest may also be fine.
> >
> > Thank you and kind regards  Jamie
> >
> > ~ James Bryce Clark
> > ~ Director of Standards Dev., OASIS
> > ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
> > ~ HQ phone: +1 978 667 5115 x203, mobile +1 310 293 6739
> >
[ .. ]