cgmo-webcgm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: 2.1 rqts goal and schedule
- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:08:20 -0600
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]