RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposed agenda for f2f meeting

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

Franck,

On your "other item".  I agree some work needs to be done on the rules for cascading profiles (see http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/cascading-profiles.html)  By the example, it implies that a cascading profile can extend the WebCGM profile to add functionality that   We recently talked about a cascading profile that would allow more than one picture to satisfy a potential engineering drawing requirement.  The referenced document doesn't seem to lay out the exact rules.  Also, I know you had some concerns about the way the XCF was specified for S1000D with branches excluded where they were not allowed in S1000D (i.e. only grobject is allowed).  The derivation of XCFs should probably be addressed more clearly, too, either in the spec or in the rules for profiles.

Thx...Dave


Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: DULUC, Franck [mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 12:52 AM
To: Lofton Henderson; Cruikshank, David W; CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposed agenda for f2f meeting

Lofton, All,

That has been something that tilted me when reading the last quaterly report.

As stated, it is true that it is now in limbo. We have been very near to be able to deploy it, but each time it has been treated as a non prioritary item (most of the time by myself). Today, the status for me is that this has been more dealt with as a prototype and is therefore dificult to maintain.

My position on your proposal is therefore: kill it.
Why:
	- interoperability issue with CGM, that I have raised some 5 years ago have decreased a lot. I suspect that having users being more demanding and vendors highly involved in the development of the technology has contributed a lot to this. CGMOpen is added value and I appreciate the vendors involvement.
	- we are near now to the point where only one profile will exist (with some cascading profiles potentially). The technical evolution of it is mastered and as it is a profile for the web (and therefore a lot of people), it could be xepected it is implemented correctly and completly (which was the major blocking point before).
	- Having the profile in the W3C and OASIS world also allows people to know more about it and also to find places whre to discuss, claim and report about it. (as said in some last emails, maye we lack some educationnal cotents, as the CGM handbook).


On other item:
We are from time to time talking about cascading profiles (ATA, ASD, ...). I think the group should reach a consensus on that subject. Especially to work on a set of rules for what is allowed or not in a cascading profiles. You should say that this i writing a profile, but in my mind this is slightly different. Rules have to be set: does WebCGM allows to its cascading profiles allowing/dismissing primitives that are not allowed/allowed in the profile? Can cascading profiles extends a list of values for an attribute (e.g. compression modes). I think tha CGMOpen (as a vendor community) has to be very clear, because behind that is the implementation issue. For me this is no sense to allow in cascading profiles something that the vendors will never implement because it is cosly and addressing a nich community of users.
Idea: it could be a document stating for each profile item what can be done?



Franck.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] Envoyé : mardi 7 août 2007 18:10 À : Cruikshank, David W; CGM Open WebCGM TC Objet : Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposed agenda for f2f meeting


At 02:57 PM 8/3/2007 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>Here's my proposal for an agenda for our f2f meeting in Seattle.
>
>Please review and give me any comments as far as additions or deletions.

Let's revisit our good old "Interop. Problem Tracking System".  I have been carrying this item forward, in quarterly reports, as "back burner, pending", for a couple years now (at least).

The last status:  we were ready to go, but needed a couple small corrections to user documentation pages.  We could never get those done.  It has now been in limbo for some years.

Therefore we should formally kill it, and take it off of our program of work.  Or else finish it and roll it out for the public (and a publicity, press-release opportunity).

-Lofton.



This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.



This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain privileged information.
If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it. 
If you have received it in error please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be accessed by someone other than the recipient, for system management and security reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of security reasons.
This access is controlled under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Lawful Business Practises.