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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

egov-bestpractice message

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

Subject: [egov-bestpractice] Re: OASIS E-GOV TC : BEST PRACTICE SC CHARTER

John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk wrote:
> The first task of our sub-committee is to produce a Charter for 
> agreement at the next TC meeting.  Attached is a draft for your 
> consideration please.  
A few quick comments:

Suggestion #1:
A minor quibble.  I would like to see Item #2, bullet 4 changed to read 
"XML repositories and data dictionaries" (removing the word "schema").

Justification #1:
The term "XML schema" implies the exclusive use of W3C XML Schema. 
While this may be the plan, alternate schema languages (such as 
RELAX-NG, another OASIS TC) are much more powerful while avoiding the 
complexity associated with W3C XML Schema.  RELAX-NG is also fully 
compatible with XML Schema, enabling one to easily move back and forth 
between the two.  I hope to see (possibly non-normative) representations 
of RELAX-NG in some of our deliverables.

Suggestion #2:
Clarify Item #3 to read something similar to "Best practices will 
leverage mature specifications/standards that have been approved by one 
or more global standards bodies.  Immature specifications (e.g. working 
drafts) will not be considered."

Justification #2:
The term "established/published specifications or standards" does not 
sufficiently clarify the status of the standards to be utilized.  Item 
#3 also implies Best that Practices will be based solely upon existing 
standards.  I expect some of the Best Practices we identify will offer 
original (and proven) ideas based upon one or more standards - not 
simply restating or pointing to existing standards.  Is this an 
unreasonable expectation?

Suggestion #3:
Item #4 implies a POC (Proof of Concept) Subcommittee.  There is not, to 
my knowledge, a POC Subcommittee for this TC.  Should a POC subcommittee 
be established?   The POC subcommittee would coordinate POC activities 
with other groups where necessary (such as OASIS' ebXML Implement) and 
solicit/build POCs from the community at large (much like the W3C 
process for moving from Candidate Recommendation to Proposed 
Recommendation [1]).  Alternately, the POC efforts could be realized by 
simply soliciting feedback from the community at large, instead of 
attempting to work on this "in-house" (again, similar to [1]).  What do 
you think?

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr#RecsPR

John Evdemon
Senior Associate
Digital Strategies
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC