OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-calendar message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Meeting Agenda Today


Sounds like the European wing will be late or missing. With two down, we need a strong attendance to get sufficient consensus on some important issues. Ideally, we can position ourselves off to complete some of this work.

 

1)      Schemas. If you haven’t been watching, Mike has completely re-cast the schemas, bridging CalConnect and OASIS. All the strings now have patterns, conformance is more likely, the rules look pretty good. The editors would like some direction that this is good enough, close enough, to start building the final documents around.

2)      Document structure. I propose that we split the TC’s work into “WS-Calendar Part One: Information Model and Conformance” and “WS-Calendar Part Two: Communications and Interactions”. Titles subject to change.

3)      Assuming consensus, or event votes, on one and two, I suggest that we prepare to have Part one ready for PR03 by Tuesday of next week.

a.       Mike to have all Schema issues closed by then. Additional Committee guidance provided today.

b.      Toby to have New document format by then

 

Thinking:

 

1)      SGIP is waiting on (1) more than (2). Mike has (correctly) spent all his energy/time on (1). This allow us to present Part 1 to the SGIP, and stabilize it fully for use in EMIX, EI, SPC201, et al.

2)      Part two needs more work. REST needs conformance. The SOAP exists in open source already, but has not been seen by the TC. It would benefit from more input from the existing Calendar/SOAP players. Multi-record interactions need to be addressed in both. This gives us more time for that.

3)      Much of the confusion around WS-Calendar involves having both in the same document. Must I use SOAP if I use WS-Calendar?  Is REST required for my high-speed highly secure trading platform? Do the message security functions, e.g., “owner”, somehow imply regulated changes of custodianship? Formally separating them removes this source of confusion.

 

I have gotten no feedback from the OASIS Process on the issues, is it really PR03, etc., but the results seem reasonable.

 

Come to the meeting ready to discuss. If there are objections, come ready to present them with specifics.

 

Thanks

 

tc

 


“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
– George Bernard Shaw.


Toby Considine
TC9, Inc

TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar

TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop

U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee

  

Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Phone: (919)619-2104

http://www.tcnine.com/
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com

 

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]