[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: Methodology - OWL
All, We discussed this topic (XML serialization of Core Components) on our last Registry TC call, and the consensus was: - It needs to be done - It should be done within the Registry TC - Furthermore, it should be done within the Core Components Review SC So at this point, we're looking for someone who would like to lead this work while I continue to drive forward with the storage representation. If anyone would like to volunteer, please let me know. Thanks, Joe Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > 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 > > 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]