Recommendation for PIM Committee Specification vote next meeting

[William Cox <wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com>]

All --

I've done a fair amount of digging/research following up on my actions from our most recent meeting.

I recommend the following course of action:

(1) Immediately vote PIM CSPRD04 out as a Committee Specification. This will take a request for a Special Majority Vote made by motion at the next meeting.

No comments were received during the review; my only comments (to the list) were related to invisible-to-the-user things like correctly stereotyping enumerations and eliminating tagged values on some classes, none of which change to model diagrams or semantics. In fact, the XMI problems wouldn't have happened if those things were visible to a user. (grr)

The CS should therefore be:
    (a) The Specification as reviewed (normative)
    (b) The XMI as reviewed (normative)
    (c) The Enterprise Architect Project file tweaked for the reviewed XMI (Non-Normative)

(2) Proceed (based on Action 2) to structure the recurrence types. I'm digging through the xCal types, and expect to have a recommendation for discussion this week. I think that in the future we want a cleanly optional set of recurrence information, and that that set should have or at least mirror the xCal structuring.


Why do (1) right now? The ASHRAE 201 committee is referencing PIM in their upcoming public review, and this makes their reference timely and correct.

Why not defer (1) until (2) is done? There will be a public review cycle required for those proposed substantive changes. ASHRAE needs a Committee Specification to reference for an August review, and they've been excellent reviewers of the drafts to date.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

bill

--

William Cox 

Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

+1 862 485 3696 mobile