[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