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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

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


Subject: 2.1 rqts goal and schedule


I have one specific agenda suggestion and one general agenda request...

Specific
----------

Again from this week's agenda:

Text search
Status: 
In general, it appeared that the vendors would implement this as a vendor specific interface and
not as a standardized method. Ben offered to document a proposal for expansion of the
getAppStructurebyName and get AppStructureById methods.

On hold until November

I think we should separate this out, regex addressing from text search.  IMO, it does not fall under "Text Search", by which latter we meant looking for stuff in 'content' APS attributes and/or strings within Restricted Text elements.

Rather, I would label it as something like "regex addressing"(in 'name' and/or 'apsid', tbd).

Also, I would like to try to agree before mid-November whether we want some level of this in 2.1.  I don't think we need a specific proposal in order to add it to basically agreed requirements.  We MUST start achieving some closure on the general shape of 2.1 requirements.

General Request
----------

The TC needs to answer this question:  when do we anticipate that we will have some closure on the prospective 2.1 project and its requriements?  I.e., are we going to have a 2.1 project?  What is its preliminary endorsed functional scope? 

I don't think we have to have a detailed design in order to include something in the requirements document.  For example, compare the 2.0 requirement for more Object Behaviors [1] with what we ultimately designed and put into 2.0 [2]:

[1] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html#Metadata
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_1_2_4

On the other hand, I realize that it is tricky to get vendor commitment in advance to support, if the scope of the functionality is not known.  Would any vendors feel uncomfortable with giving a provisional, qualified commitment to a general statement of each requirement its scope?  (I feel that the decision can always be changed later, by the TC and/or the WG.)

(Btw, I am working on a skeleton 2.1 rqts document, refining the Seattle input according to subsequent decisions.)

If I seem to be getting pushy on this ... its because I have to report to the WG and the WG needs to decide if it is going to re-charter after 11/30 Charter expiration.

Regards,
-Lofton.

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