Mission Creep

Last winter, we developed a work plan that refined the oBIX core, (1.x) , and defined common extensions (2.x).

The plan for 1.x was to keep it as simple as 1.0, but to refine the interoperation and conformance. The simple device that exposes a couple points would still be able to be a full-fledged implementer of 1.1. The chances that such devices would interact easily would be improved by adding conformance to the spec. We opted to unbundle Bindings and Transports to allow conformant extension w/o touching the core. It was the committee’s sense at that time that a system that implements all of 1.0 could (if still conformant) be able to claim to implement all of 1.1.

The plan for 2.x was to define a framework for common extensions, or, if you will, to certain classes of advanced contracts, for oBIX. These included advanced telemetry, binding through BIM, Binding through a standard Tagging scheme, and profiling for security. I put Security last because both Tagging and BIM might offer means to define informational security.

In our last meeting, Tagging began to creep into 1.x. This is a significant change to the work plan. It offers many opportunities to delay 1.x; our work plan was to release 1.x for public review no later than next month and then turn to 2.x. It also violates the notion that the core remains essentially unchanged. This is a significant change that should not “creep” in to our plans, but should be discussed openly.

So, what do we want to do?

"Energy and persistence conquer all things." -- Benjamin Franklin

Toby Considine
TC9, Inc

OASIS TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar

OASIS TC Editor: EMIX, Energy Interoperation

SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee

Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Phone: (919)619-2104

http://www.tcnine.com
blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com

obix message