24 September
2021 - 9:00 MSP/10:00 Ottawa/14:00 UTC/16:00 Central
Europe
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=2021-09-24T14:00:00
Conferencing
info
------------------------
Meeting ID:
878 5955 1232
Join from PC,
Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87859551232
Password is
needed and sent separately, if you do not have it please send
an email to the chair
TC Members
presence and status at this meeting
See https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=codelist
Pres. |
Name |
Organization |
Status |
(X) |
Kenneth
Bengtsson |
Individual |
Member |
(X) |
Erlend
Klakegg Bergheim |
The Norwegian
Agency for Public and Financial Management (DFO) |
Voting Member |
(X) |
James Cabral
|
InfoTrack US
|
Voting Member |
(X) |
Andrea Caccia
(chair) |
Individual |
Voting Member |
(X) |
Ger Clancy |
IBM |
Persistent
non-voting Member |
(X) |
Jim Harris |
National
Center for State Courts |
Member |
(X) |
Ken Holman |
Crane
Softwrights Ltd. |
Voting Member |
(L) |
Natalie Muric |
Publications
Office of the European Union |
Voting Member |
(X) |
Levine Naidoo |
IBM |
Persistent
non-voting Member |
Presence
legend (X):
(P)=Present
(A)=Absent
(R)=Regrets
(L)=Leave of absence
TC Members possibly gaining
voting rights after this meeting
None
TC Members possibly loosing
voting rights after this meeting
Erlend, Ken
Review of last call minutes
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/codelist/202107/msg00012.html
In
case the minutes cannot be approved during
the meeting due to lack of quorum, they will
be considered approved if no objection is
raised during the meeting or received within
7 days from now.
Confirmation
of Meeting Schedule
----------------------------------------------
- 2021-10-08:
09:00MSP/10:00Ottawa/14:00UTC/16:00Europe
- 2021-10-22:
09:00MSP/10:00Ottawa/14:00UTC/16:00Europe
- 2021-11-05: 10:00MSP/11:00Ottawa/15:00UTC/16:00Europe (to be confirmed)
- 2021-11-05: 09:00MSP/10:00Ottawa/15:00UTC/16:00Europe
TC Deliverables
planning
---------------------------------
Agreed that we
first should focus on the first two deliverables:
- a semantic
model / meta-model of genericode
- an XML
serialization of the genericode semantic model, with the intent of
backward compatibility (or even no changes) to the existing
genericode
We need to look
into how to express the semantic model of the existing markup
vocabulary. What technologies should we look at and use?
Further discussion is needed.
Semantic model
/ meta-model
-----------------------------------------
James
volunteered for start looking into the "semantic
model / meta-model of genericode" topic and assessing if the fit
of the metamodel to current Genericode specification.
The NIEM metamodel should be analysed, Git repository:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/codelist/email/archives/202105/msg00004.html
Proposed
extensions to the NIEM metamodel to support genericode features such
as multiple columns and keys with mocked up example based on
nc:LanguageCode that introduces 3 new elements to the NIEM
metamodel, for discussion:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/codelist/202106/msg00005.html
Ken observed the following about the metamodel in light of the work
being done in JSON:
- it may be premature to continue work on the metamodel until we
determine its utility in light of our earlier decision on JSON
- earlier it was decided that the JSON syntax is only a
demonstration subset of genericode so that users can tailor the JSON
to their own needs
- if we aren't going to create the entire genericode in JSON, what
is the use of a metamodel?
- already proposals are made to have different names in the JSON
than in the XSD, so what would we have to do in the metamodel to
identify semantics that are labeled differently in the two syntaxes
- Ken proposed to suspend the metamodel preserving the work done so
far and put our efforts into a parallel subset JSON and other
responsibilities on the project
This was agreed at the 30 July 2021 meeting.
Genericode
document editingÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃ
as recorded in the last minutes Ken posted genericode CSD04WD05 for internalreview and candidate for a public review:
Is CSD04WD05 acceptable to be distributed for public review?
In general, is anything missing or in need of correction?
Is the JSON transformation acceptable?
Are the examples in XML and JSON sufficient?
If acceptable CSD04WD05 will be marked as CSD04 and a Committee Ballot started to approve a public review.