[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: draft minutes of 16 July 2008 conference call.
|
Minutes of 7/16/2008 ORMS conference call Attendees:
Waiting for quorum
- meeting starts @2:11pmPT [Roll call] 0. Call to order - Verify Minute Taker (Mani) - Roll Call 1. Status Report and Discussion on
Terminology Glossary creation -Stop by now and Move on to an Abstruct Model creation
discussion? -Or keep on researching? How? [no discussion on this topic] 2. Status Report and Discussion on Use
Cases 2a. Introduction and explanation of use cases posted on
wiki Nat: status report
on discussion and use-cases; any new use-cases? Mani: Giles added 3
use-cases Henrik: I added one
some resemblance with other use-cases (esp #6). upto reputers to establish
criteria on which to be reputed; also upto reputees to include criteria on
which they wish to be reputed. Nat: reputee can
bias scores if allowed to establish criteria Henrik: it is a
bias as well as choice (applicable in some professions) by which to evaluate.(e.g.,
would the employer pay contractor the money w/o any trouble). Ø different
people have different criteria and evaluate them differently. DG: like the idea.
However, confused, since algorithm calculation is out of scope, how will
algorithm be able to handle criteria from both sources? Henrik:
re-clarifies the use-cases. DG: agrees. (but
still does not sound convinced) Nat: reputation
calculator has to take inputs from both sources. Henrik: Different
criteria. Nat: Beneficial for
wiki-readers; to have specific examples in scenario. (clarifies use-cases). henrik: Maybe i
should write down the examples. nat: yes, very
helpful. nat: any other
discussion? Paul: question on
scope. i can think of following use-cases: Ø tracking
behavior between people; attempting to measure social capital between people in
electronic collaboration environment: between people; input to reputation
algorithm will be characterization of behavior; o
Frequency (of response to
email/IM/chat), promptness, nature of response/initiatives, dis/agreement to
topics, Claims; and other traits (of e-interaction). does group feel it is too far afield
(derived from monitoring behavior)? DB: i think it is
in scope. DG agrees too. Paul: I will add
use-cases Nat: please.; any
other discussion on this use-case? 2b. How to address Use Cases Document(one
of deliverables in Charter) 2c. What is required to start creating
this document? Nat: next sub-item
- use-case doc.; first deliverable for the TC. DB: is there a
target date? Nat: i think so. per
charter july 2008; hoping Bill Barnhill (editor) to the use-cases were here. (Mike joins) DB: (1).
Reputations alone (inputs & outputs); many instances are already there. (2). Another
is portable reputation (how are they exchanged and used in shared systems) DG: (1) also needs
xml schema for reputation; still has to be in some format. Don’t see DB: Not necessary
for data to have a std. schema if they stay in the same system (as they do in
1) - no need for std. DG: but we would
want them to be the same (xml) format. DB: but they are
different; objective is to find what we want to achieve; the question is not
about format. DG: xml schema will
still be valid in std. since this will be needed to achieve (2) Nat: If it makes
sense, in picking through the model. DB: clarifying:
input data instead of result of computation. DG: then, should we
avoid cosnidering (1)? DB: no; use-cases
for (2) may happen in future. (we will still need to work on (1) to start
with). DB: can't take
reputation handling methodology out of vendor systems today. Take input data;
and certain type of value they compute. It is important for oasis to understand
the kind of data handled. DG: to define
description of data; reaction is likely to be negative; vendors may want to
define their own format; it is hard to define a uniform format. DB: we want to
model as much as possible - when working on a schema. DG: maybe possible. DB: don't oppose
exchangeable to portable; it is about being 'open' Nat: do you suggest
tagging use-cases for 'portability'? DB: yes; serves to
help define the XML schema and its scope. Nat: anything more? DB: concerned about
(use-cases doc.) deadline - end-july; (will be on vacation next week or so) N: concerned.
should I extend? Mani: good to
extend. DG agrees Nat: discuss on
mailing list and see what the larger audience think (small attendance today) Mani: discuss in
list - and check what date editor is comfortable with on deadline or how much
more time is required for a strawman draft doc. Nat: take to
mailing list? Mani: yes. 3. Status Report on a common UML tool - Decision of which tool we adopt Nat: status report
on common UML tool - take to mailing list and finalize next call. Mani agrees. 4. Discussion on a model creation work - What will be required to
start this? - Requirement document creation comes
first? - A part of framework creation(one of
deliverables in Charter)? Nat: discussion of
model creation: take to mailing list as well. 5. Status Report on Document Version Control There was an
email from JeffH (no response from JeffH) o
Nat: the document looks sound.
please read and comment (list). o
Next week or week after we should
finalize. 6. Other Business o
f2f (if you have preference - pass on
to email list). o
Symposium John: About symposium - i am in
committee. what do we want done? John: don't want to take over a slot
somebody else is willing to fill. Nat: someone interested in speaking
for/on ORMS? please speak up in mailing list. Tony (just joined late): there's a
w3c meeting Nat: thin attendance today. (most
discussion referred to email list). Tony: Many are at w3c meeting
perhaps. Nat: any comments before adjourning?
hearing none (adjourned) 3pmPT. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]