Well, the ballots closed at the appointed time – not midnight ET as I posted in this thread. For the couple of you that were going to change your vote, I’m sorry for the incorrect post. Both ballots have now passed.
I have spoken with Paul Knight to discuss what options we have going forward. What happens now, is TC process will continue with the production of the Committee Specification Documents in word/pdf/html and be loaded into the OASIS library (CS01 Directory). An announcement will be made to the OASIS community that the CS has been published. There is also a statement made on the OASIS page and perhaps something in the Cover Pages (I have not confirmed with Carol Geyer the details of this announcement). These are the things that are set in motion.
However, we can abandon those and bring another working draft through the process as soon as it is ready. As it progresses, it will be CS02 but the Standard that would result will still be DE 2.0 Version 1 and SitRep 1.0 Version 1. Paul further described how lightweight the process will be to get a new WD to the point we are now with the CS01. After the WD is ready, we will publish a CSD, recommend for PRD which will only require a 2-week review! Then with no changes (always an uncertainty), we are back to a ballot for CS02. As the DE2.0 already has a previous WD with the extension method built in, we could be very close.
I would like to call a special meeting to find out from all members to get your input. Please think about this and either be on the call Tues 12-1ET or respond here with you thoughts.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Elysa Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:00 PM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] Thoughts on EDXL-DE and SitRep
Thank you all for taking the time to respond to this thread. I appreciate that Jeff has already developed a working draft for DE2 with the extension concept so it will not take long to get that doc ready. SitRep will take a bit more time, however MITRE has done an implementation so should be well schooled in what changes need to be made. I’m happy to know that Don is willing to put some resources on this right away to make it happen.
Our ballots close at midnight ET Thurs 4/11. Voting members can vote or change their vote until that time. If you want to hold DE2 and SitRep until the extension concept is included, you will need to vote NO on the ballots.
If the vote does not pass, I would like to call a special TC meeting for this Tues (an otherwise non-TC day) 12-1ET to decide how to dispense the work to be done and set a schedule.
I will go along with whatever the group wants and do what needs to be done.
Just one note: It is seldom our intentions that hold us up, (though that does happen and I admit my share) but our schedules and other things that are beyond our control.
So, let's rock and roll.
On 4/10/2013 6:23 PM, McGarry, Donald P. wrote:
- We can't go back and change the DE 2.0 or SitRep 1.0 schemas later.
- Even if we put whatever revised list data structure in the 'common types', that won't change what is used in the DE 2.0 / SitRep 1.0 specification. Just because we update common types does not inherently update common types across other standards.
- Any revision to the choice element that I used to create 'default' value-lists would require a major revision, an errata wouldn't cover it.
- I don't think / want this to take a long time. I think we just need to work out:
- What is the future of the value-list (and related list structures) across EDXL
- How do we handle default list values
- How do we need to change the schemas for DE 2 / SitRep 1 to support the above.
- After we have that discussion we can make the changes and move on. From there we can provide guidance on how to use these concepts going ahead.
I spoke with Elysa about this today and I'm willing to put some folks behind making this happen in a timely way. If we can pick a single time to meet weekly, I think we can have this hashed out without too much hassle.
Lead Software Systems Engineer
The MITRE Corp.
Did you, perhaps mean TEP1.0 and HAVE2.0?
On 4/10/2013 2:04 PM, Joerg, Werner wrote:
Ok, maybe I can put some order into all this:
1) Let's move the new candidate standards with updated schema and adjusted specification (DE 2.0, TEP 1.0) proceed through the approval process;
2) Validate the "Extension" mechanisms and get approval of the concepts by the TC.
3) Add the Extension mechanisms to Common Types and get formal approval from the TC.
4) Publish "How To" / "Best Practices" documentation
5) From here on any standard can use Extensions:
5.1) For new standards, the work done for TEP or DE can serve for guidance.
5.2) To allow for the use Extensions in the spirit of "layers" ("Community Extensions") in existing standards, a "small" addition to the schema is required - an Errata could be sufficient to accomplish this.
5.3) To allow for the full set of extension capabilities (i.e. "list augmentation", "list replacement" and "list reassignment") in existing standards, more substantial changes are needed in the schemas. As our work with TEP has shown, migrating from WD03 (without Extensions) to WD04 (with extensions), such changes can lead to significant simplifications with repercussions in the schema and the specification. In most cases these will be substantial changes that can not be accomplished with a simple Errata.
Okay, I'll give it some more thought, but I'm not happy about waiting.
On 4/10/2013 12:11 PM, Wilkins, Brian M wrote:
Extensions should be part of common types so it would be available to any standard using common types. However, it is still up to any individual standard to allow extensions or not. If they are not part of the schema for the standard, then they are not part of the standard and any adopter trying to add them to a given standard will break interoperability. This in itself explicitly states whether or not Extensions are part of a standard. If this change is implemented as being suggested, this will not be a minor change to the schema, satisfied by an Errata. This will remove the choice elements and add a whole new element in possibly many places in addition to adding potentially multiple sets of enumerations. Someone that implements DE2 as it is today will have to make significant changes to their code base to implement DE X with extensions, or SitRep for that matter. As both an implementer and a standards member, I think it is in the best interest of our communities to wait, make the changes, and help limit that pain/cost of implementation. IMHO.
There is an old saying that if it isn't forbidden, it's mandatory.
That is a deliberately extreme notion, but, to be honest, I don't think we need to expicitly state that extension can apply to SitRep and DE, or HAVE and RM for that matter. If we make the change to the edxl-ct, edxl-gsf or edxl-ciq it applies and all we really need to do is to provide some guidance.
I absolutely oppose pulling back on SitRep-v1.0 or DE-v2.0.
I could have been equivocal, but where's the fun in that? ;-)
On 4/10/2013 11:18 AM, Elysa Jones wrote:
We have worked hard getting SitRep1 and DE2 ready for an organizational vote and we currently have a ballot open for the purpose of approving these works as a Committee Specification. If this passes, the next steps are obtaining statements of use then agreeing (again by special majority) to begin the 60-day review prior to organizational wide balloting.
Discussion over the past several months regarding a “standard” extension method for all of our specifications has been ongoing. These discussion are best documented in the RIM-SC. TC members have been made aware of this discussion and invited to participate and stay in touch as it could affect all of our work. I’ll not repeat any of that discussion here but ask you to keep it in mind as you make your decision about SitRep1 and DE2.
You may recall there were two versions of the DE2 being worked – one with the layer-extension concept and one without. We decided to go forward without at this time but all agreed we should keep it in mind and find some way to incorporate later - perhaps through common types. Some of our members are concerned with releasing DE (as well as SitRep) without this extension concept and then trying to make a change later would be problematic. We all know how long changes can take and we are anxious to get this work out. We learned in the last couple of weeks that this extension method would solve some issues with TEP as well. So, after considering putting this in TEP, it has re-opened the discussion about DE and SitRep in some circles.
The bottom line here is that we have members that are re-thinking whether we need to put either of these standards out without this extension concept. We have sufficient votes today to move the as they are to Committee Specification. The ballot closes tomorrow. If we wish to add “extensions” to DE2 and SitRep, we will have to make not only changes to the document and back through public review again.
Personally, having a “standardized” extension method across all our standards is very appealing to me. However, delaying SitRep and DE2 concerns me if it is going to take another year. If it can be completed in 6 months, it concerns me a little less - but only if sufficient resources are available to turn this around quickly. Basically DE2 has already been done and there is a WD version with it included. I’m not sure about how much time it would take to add it to SitRep.
Please respond to this note with your thoughts.
Elysa Jones, Chair
Berkeley, CA 94702
Berkeley, CA 94702
Berkeley, CA 94702
Berkeley, CA 94702