[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: Methodology - OWL
I volunteer. Duane Chiusano Joseph wrote: >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. >> >> > > > -- Senior Standards Strategist Adobe Systems, Inc. http://www.adobe.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]