Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Timing of WebCGM 2.0

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Thanks Dave.

We do indeed have a time crunch.  IMO, it is doable.  But at some point we 
may be forced to remove some features, if:

1.) we cannot close all issues very soon (Jun-Jul to republish CD w/ all 
major issues closed);
2.) and/or if they are not implemented (and we're probably looking at late 
summer for having multiple implementations of every feature.)

Can you clarify one thing you wrote:  "To me this means we really have to 
have a "stable", if not approved spec by the end of the year".  Certainly, 
OASIS Standard would qualify (or W3C Rec).  Would anything less final qualify?

For example,

-- ballot for OASIS Standard is in progress?  (No substantive changes after 
this point, else TC Process requires that the whole mess goes back to the 
starting line.)

-- and/or W3C Proposed Recommendation?  (After PR, W3C only allows purely 
editorial changes.)

-Lofton.

At 01:34 PM 5/20/2005 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>All,
>
>I've been at the EPWG meeting, an AIA Tech Pubs Workshop, the S1000D User 
>Forum and the new ATA/ASD/AIA collaboration meetings for the last two weeks.
>
>There is keen interest in the DOM/XCF functionality of WebCGM 2.0 in the 
>S1000D community (ASD, AIA, and now ATA) for the next release of the 
>S1000D spec (probably V2.3).
>
>We are now in a time crunch...
>
>Here's the issue:
>
>Deadline for placeholders (white paper/initial CPF -Change Proposal Form) 
>is Aug 19th, 2005. (Peter will take care of that if we can show progress)
>CPF for V2.3 due probably by the end of 2005
>Edited chapter probably due end of Jan, 2005
>The TPSMG would unlikely go forward with a promise of something in the 
>future for WebCGM 2.0 in this version.
>
>To me this means we really have to have a "stable", if not approved spec 
>by the end of the year.  I'm confident that we can get the technical work 
>done in time to support that date.  I'm concerned about the vendor 
>implementations that we need to process through the W3C.  The MS SC has 
>opened discussions with both OASIS and the W3C and has had preliminary 
>positive response, but we have a lot of hoops to jump through and probably 
>some territorial boundaries to soften.
>
>I'd like to see all the vendors crank up their implementation schedule, so 
>we can meet the S1000D requirements.
>
>We will also probably need a f2f meeting late summer or early fall to make 
>sure we are on track, along with our bi-weekly telecons.
>
>thx...Dave Cruikshank
>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
>Boeing Commercial Airplane
>206.544.8876, fax 206.544.9590
>david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com