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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

obix message

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

Subject: Re: [obix] Mission Creep (UNCLASSIFIED)

I think that's exactly right - keep 1.1 on track, consider tagging in 2.x.


William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax

On 5/28/13 11:46 AM, Bogen, Chris ERDC-RDE-ITL-MS wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

I want to keep tagging out of 1.1 and stay focused on meeting our original timeline. It doesn't seem that there are substantial issues with the 1.1 WD that would derail us if we stick to the plan.

Craig, is there any input you need from the group ahead of our TH meeting?


-----Original Message-----
From: obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Toby Considine
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:19 AM
To: obix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [obix] 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 <mailto:Toby.Considine@fac.unc.edu> 
Phone: (919)619-2104

blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com 


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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