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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

acxo message

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

Subject: MINUTES from ACXO meeting 24 March 2000

The following are minutes taken at the 24 March 2000 meeting (a
teleconference) of the Advisory Committee of XML.ORG (ACXO).

Present:
 ACXO members:
   Chair - OASIS Executive Director (Laura Walker)
   DataChannel (Norbert Mikula)
   Documentum (Una Kearns)
   IBM (Michael Weiner)
   Sun Microsystems (Simon Nicholson)
 Others:
   Nagwa Abdelefour
   Jon Bosak

Absent:
   GCA
   SoftQuad
   CommerceOne (Terry Allen)


AGENDA
Participate in today's regrep TC call
New XML.ORG sponsor
Contract update
Update on ISO11179 - Una, Jon
Review and discuss list of policy needs (from Terry)
 - quality of submissions
Launch plan
 - populating regrep (and related IP)
 - staffing, support and review process
Demo

MINUTES

Participation in today's regrep TC call
 Norbert, Nagwa, Una (with Jon, Michael, Simon and Laura observing)

New XML.ORG sponsor
 - Mercator Software. Walker to brief on ACXO
   activities and to solicit ACXO rep next week

Contract update
 - Comment period closed 31 March. OASIS counsel
   will call a meeting with legal reps from
   sponsoring organizations to discuss all outstanding
   issues and to finalize the contract. NOTE: All
   sponsors will be required to sign the SAME CONTRACT.
 - AI for ACXO. Identify your legal reps ASAP, alert
   them to their need to participate in this meeting
   (which will be scheduled sometime in early April),
   and provide their contact information to Walker.

Update on ISO11179 - Una, Jon
 - implementation team will work with REGREP TC in resolving issues related
to the implementation of the REGREP SPEC. (For specific issues refer to
Una's email of 23 March, in which she identifies issues and potential
solutions.) The implementation team is soliciting guidance from the REGREP
TC and awaits its response.

Demo
- Una to email list of metadata
- We need to finalize list of metadata
- AI for REGREP TC: Is some or all of the the metadata required by the spec?


Review and discuss list of policy needs (Issues 1-17 identified by Terry;
see attached, which include the issue and notes/votes on the discussion
during the 24 March ACXO meeting)

AI: Laura will identify those policy needs that are best addressed by
external resources (e.g., legal and/or IT (hosting)), and OASIS staff and
Michael will assume responsibility for making proposals on each of those.

AI: Nagwa to report back to REGREP TC that terminology used in Registration
Status List ("certified" and "standardized") be modified (due to legal
risks).


Launch plan
HOSTING
 - maintenance
 - identifying hardware needs
 options for hosting
 - contribution of sponsor or member
 - asp
 - internal
SOFTWARE LICENSES
 - ORACLE LICENSE
 - iPLANET WEBSERVER LICENSE
 - DOCUMENTUM LICENSE
POPULATING THE REPOSITORY
USABILITY TESTING
 - Test site
 - Identifying testers/test plans
 - Test data
MARKET VALIDATION
 - Focus group (?)
REGREP MANAGEMENT
 - backups, etc.
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

ESTABLISH GOALS FOR DEBUT/ANNOUNCEMENT
MEDIA TOUR, etc.
AT: Carol and Laura to propose launch plan. Strawman due 11 April.

Staffing, support and review process
Discussion.


Meeting schedule
Next call scheduled on Tuesday 28 March at 11AM PST (regularly scheduled
call). Michael to provide call-in numbers.
Next F2F rescheduled from Monday 10 April to Thursday 13 April in
Pleasanton.


NOTE to address this when determining hosting arrangements. 


"The complete content of both the registry and repository 
should be backed up offsite, and the backup tested. Some plan 
should be made for reconstituting the registry and repository 
from the backup should the original site be rendered 
inoperable."



"ISO/IEC 11179 defines a data element status value, “certified”
(Part 6, p. 9) for a “recorded data element [that] has met the
quality requirements specified in this and other parts of
ISO/IEC 11179.”
The registry should provide metadata about what
specifications an entity conforms to and who did the testing to
determine that conformance. (XML validity vs. well-
formedness falls under this heading.)"

RA is responsible for validating conformance (to XML spec).

SUBMISSION STATUS - reported only to SO
received but not reviewed
 (do we make this known?)
validated but not yet available
validated and available
reviewed and "judged"/certified
 NO WAY!
 -




effectivity and expiration dates.


"The registry and repository shall have published policies
relating to its plans for continuing in operation and the
outcomes to be expected should it cease operation or should
business relationships with the owners of its content change. A
point of departure for describing archival longevity is the
“Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System”
(OAIS) which is a draft ISO standard.
It should be possible for an SO to request that an entity be kept
available for a given length of time, also that it be withdrawn
after a given length of time. TO DO: devise the semantics for
this, perhaps in a DTD fragment."



we will support retraction (make it inaccessible, not delete it from the
system).

"It may be desireable to allow an SO to request the retraction of
an entity deposited in error."



Function of hosting arrangement.


"The complete content of both the registry and repository 
should be backed up offsite, and the backup tested. Some plan 
should be made for reconstituting the registry and repository 
from the backup should the original site be rendered 
inoperable."



(note there's no requirement to publish a security policy.)

"Security of some sort is required for all functions of the 
registry and repository, and so should not be considered 
separately. Security should be sufficient to engender 
confidence in the registry and repository."


virus checking
ro and review process


The XML.ORG policy ....


"The registry and repository shall have published policies 
relating to their use of methods to guarantee the integrity of 
entities in repository and metadata in the registry; for example, 
does the repository employ digital signatures to ensure against 
corruption? if transformations of registered entities are served 
are they signed as well?"



again, we may have done this one.

"(normative) 
The registry and repository shall have published policies 
relating to their provision of intellectual property notices for 
entities in the repository; that is, whether the interface to the 
registry or repository warns of the existence of copyright 
notices, asserted licenses, or other intellectual property 
restrictions or encumbrances, or leaves it to the user to 
discover them."

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC