Thanks, Bill.
If there are no objections, then, I will prepare to have a vote to release as a Committee Specification, with the non-normative document updated to match the
UML actually in the public review.
tc
“It is the theory that decides what can be observed."
—Albert Einstein
Toby Considine
Phone: (919)962-9073
Information Technology Services
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
|
Email:
Toby.Considine@unc.edu
Chair, OASIS OBIX Technical Committee
Chair, OASIS WS-Calendar Technical Committee
Editor, OASIS EMIX, Energy Interoperation TC
|
From: ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of William Cox
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 4:15 PM
To: WS-Calendar TC List <ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [ws-calendar] Recommendation for PIM Committee Specification vote next meeting
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