Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: Methodology - OWL

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Here's an update on this for all (including serialization in our
efforts):

I have run this by Kathryn, and we've decided to add it to the agenda of
our next Registry TC call. I'll send an update to the list after it's
discussed.

Joe

Duane Nickull wrote:
> 
> Joseph:
> 
> I would word the choices as this and call for a vote for #1 or #2:
> 
> 1. This group should take on the task of defining the serialization for
> Core Components and BIE's.  This will enable them to be used and
> retrieved from a registry or anywhere else.  This work will be done in
> addition to defining the storage format.  The group will sort out the
> details later of what dependencies may exist between these two tasks.
> 
> or
> 
> 2.  This group will not be involved with defining a Core Component or
> BIE serialization.  There is no need for anyone to use CC's or BIE's or
> another group should be formed to tackle that responsibility.
> 
> I propose that you, as chair of this group, call for a vote.  I do not
> see any benefit to define a serialization in absence of a storage format
> so saving and using the existing work is valid.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Duane Nickull
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> >Excellent points - I think a vote would be best. However, I'm still not
> >certain about what is being proposed, and we probably shouldn't have a
> >vote until this is solidifed. Please let me know which of the 2 choices
> >you propose:
> >
> >(1) That we not define storage for CCs (undoes all of our work thus far)
> >(2) That we define storage for CCs, and additionally an XML
> >serialization
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Joe
> >
> >Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joseph:
> >>
> >>How about a negative opt-out response instead?  If anyone feels that
> >>this should NOT be done in our TC, they can express why to this list.
> >>
> >>Can we assume the work if no one opposes it?
> >>
> >>Duane
> >>
> >>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thanks so much Duane. In terms of the SC, we still have not received any
> >>>feedback indicating any agreement whatsoever that we should include
> >>>serialization in our work. If anyone feels that we should, please
> >>>express this on our listserv. Unless there are responses, we can't have
> >>>a sense of what the SC believes is the best course of action.
> >>>
> >>>We also have not yet clarified whether or not the serialization would be
> >>>in place of the storage work we have done so far, or in addition to.
> >>>Let's also please clarify this point as well.
> >>>
> >>>Looking forward to your responses...
> >>>
> >>>Joe
> >>>
> >>>Duane Nickull wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>All:
> >>>>
> >>>>I would propose that we use a RUP/UMM type methodological approach to
> >>>>our work in this area.
> >>>>
> >>>>1. gather stakeholder requirements, technical requirements of what is
> >>>>needed in the Serialization.
> >>>>
> >>>>2. define the serialization first.
> >>>>
> >>>>3. work backwards based on the serialization to determine what must be
> >>>>present in the storage format.  IMO - the serialization requirements
> >>>>will create dependencies on the storage format.
> >>>>
> >>>>To me,  this is the correct and logical way to approach the problem.  I
> >>>>hereby volunteer to take a stab at the first draft of #1 above
> >>>>(requirements for the serialization).
> >>>>
> >>>>Duane Nickull
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Senior Standards Strategist
> >>>>Adobe Systems, Inc.
> >>>>http://www.adobe.com
> >>>>
> >>>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Senior Standards Strategist
> >>Adobe Systems, Inc.
> >>http://www.adobe.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Senior Standards Strategist
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://www.adobe.com