[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes of the 2008-06-18 ORMS TC Telecon
Followning are the minutes of the 2008-06-18 ORMS TC telecon. Action items are prefixed with #. Date: Wednesday, 18 June 2008 Time: 05:00pm - 06:00pm ET Agenda: 1. Call to order - Verify Minute Taker - Roll Call 2. Status Report and Discussion on Terminology Glossary creation 3. Status Report and Discussion on Use Cases. 4. Discussion on the "Reputation Score"issue on the Charter -How to solve and settle down this? 5. Other Business -Is the 6/11 meeting counted as unofficial? -Modeling tools for use cases update 6. Adjournment MINUTES: 1. Call to order 2. Roll call: Attendance: JJ Moortgat William Barnhill Jeffrey Broberg Vadim Lander Drummond Reed Daniela Bourges Waldegg Robert Daly Michael McIntosh Anthony Nadalin Bruce Rich John Bradley Corey Leong Paul Trevithick Lauren Davis Les Chasen Peter Davis Jeff Hodges William Tan Dorothy Gellert Frederick Hirsch Nat Sakimura Tatsuki Sakushima 3. Verify minute taker: JJ Moortgat volunteered to take notes 4. Re-cap that last week's meeting, 6/11, did not count. 5. Status Report and Discussion on Terminology Glossary creation Any additional comments on glossary creation? It was discussed that it may be premature to create the glossary since we are still researching work. There are a few good glossaries out there, but we still need to research existing terminology and glossaries before creating our own. 6. Status Report and Discussion on Use Cases. Question was asked if there are any new use cases to throw on table. There were no new ones submitted this week. Question was asked on how we determine the validity or confidence of factual data vs. subjective data. It was deemed that it may be out of scope to determine if factual data is valid or not, that instead, it may be part of the process an end-user would take when creating a Reputation formula. If a formula variable was subjective, or if factual data was suspect, then a weight could be applied to that variable to take care of that. Question was asked if Daniella had submitted any more details on use cases, or if IBM had any additional use cases to bring to the table. The answer was that the use cases submitted at the face-to-face meeting (the presentation slides) is it for now. It was deemed that we are still in input mode for use cases and that we need to create more. There was a discussion on the conceptual level of use cases that we present as a committee. A specific example was discussed where the Open ID use case may be too detailed and hard to understand for some, and that we need higher level use cases as well. 7. Discussion on the "Reputation Score"issue on the Charter -How to solve and settle down this? More debate over the score vs. value terminology in charter. There was a discussion that if we were to define score vs. value in more detail, could the lawyers at the different organizations review the definitions and bless them, and would that be an acceptable approach. There was some agreement on this. The consensus was that we should leave the charter as is for now until we can review more use cases. So, the decision was made to take the charter off the agenda for now, but to keep it as an "open issue" in the issue database. # Action Item is for Danialla to put the charter terminology clarification as an open action item. 8. Wrap up and the call was ended.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]