FW: Meeting notes for Sept 28th telecon

["Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>]

Minutes from our meeting Sept 28th. Thanks Farrukh!




Date: September 28, 2006
Participants: Kathryn, Nikola, Monica, Farrukh, Ivan, Carl

1. Approval of previous meeting minutes for August 31st

Approved

2. Minute taker

Farrukh Najmi (with help from Ivan)

3. ebXML Registry Profile for Web Ontology ballot results, next steps

Kathryn: The ballot was approved as Committee Draft. Congratulations
team. Do we want to send it through the OASIS approval process?

Nikola: What do other TCs do with profile specs?

Farrukh: There is ample precedent for approving profiles as OASIS
standard. Examples include profiles of SAML and XACML TC core specs.
We should treat this and other profiles the same as core specs and send
them through the standards track all the way to approval as OASIS
standard.

Kathryn: Described the OASIS standards approval process:
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#stand_approv_process>

In the best of circumstances the next step would be a 60 day review
after which the profile spec may be voted by Full majority to become a
Committee Specification. A separate vote (that can be simultaneous with
Committee Specification vote) will be required to send the profile spec
for OASIS approval ballot. At best it will take another 30 days for
OASIS approval ballot to complete. End to end, we are looking at a
minimum of 90-120 days period.

Nikola: Do profile specs have to be approved at the same time as core
specs

Farrukh: No. They can be approved independently but MUST profile a
specific version of core specs. The OWL profile profiles version 3.0 of
core specs.

Kathryn: Is there a motion to approve advancing the "ebXML Registry
Profile for Web Ontology" for public review and eventual
standardization?

Farrukh: I motion to approve advancing the "ebXML Registry Profile for
Web Ontology" for public review and eventual standardization.

Ivan: Seconds the motion

Ivan, others: Side discussion on whether we should in future synchronize
approval of core and profile specs.

Farrukh: It is best if we approve profile specs whenever they are ready
because TC does not have resources to do core specs and profile specs
simultaneously.

ACTION: Kathryn to review OASIS process and open KAVI ballot to move the
profile spec forward for public review.

4. User Guide suggestion for profiles (see minutes from last meeting)

Farrukh: User's Guide is a good idea. I suggest using Wiki for User's
Guide

Ivan: How about we compose it on the wiki and then compile into a
document. Some agreement followed.

Ivan: What if we took the Table of Contents of the "ebXML registry
Profile Template" as a starting point for the tutorial? (Ivan volunteers
to do initial wiki outline and team agrees and thanks him)

Farrukh: Suggestion to arrange to User's Guide in a sequence that
follows the temporal sequence of tasks in a real deployment. Describe
the roles involved in each task.

5. Use case for storing electronic contract negotiations. See 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/email/archives/20060
9/msg00006.html

Nikola: I read it partially. Not clear on the scope of the authors'
expectations from the regrep TC. This seems like a candidate for a
profile of ebXML Registry. It seems current registry functionality can
handle the requirements. The problem is very similar to CPP/A.

Farrukh: I read it too. I agree on the similarity with CPP/A. I agree
that current specs likely will meet the requirements. Perhaps the
authors of this document could collaborate with CPP/A TC and take a
divide and conquer approach to writing this profile.

Nikola: registry can be used to store signatures about a document.

Carl: it is an opportunity for us. He is looking for a support for non
repudiation a document. How digitally lock a document.

Nikola: registry can be used more than only for store negotiation.

Carl: Many possible ways can be followed.

Ivan: how to modify the registry specs for accepting different
signatures of a document?

Farrukh: with xacml we already support this feature and a doc can be
modified by more users

Ivan: then the profile should provide also a xacml specific policy

Ivan: are we sure that specs are good enough to handle all legal
requirements?

Carl: digital signature service core can be a good point

Farrukh:

1. Is this use case is a good fit with out registry? Yes 
2. Can the current specs meet the requirements? I believe so 
3. What Next Steps should we suggest to authors?
  a) Authors start a "eContract Profile for ebXML Registry"
specification.
  b) regrep TC members can provide consultation to profile writers
  c) If there is funding for the effort then a consultant may be able to
help speed this work up.

Carl: I am on a Program Committee on security in eGovernment. We are
planning a workshop in April 2007 in Austria. Perhaps the authors may
consider participating using this use case.

6. ebXML Registry 3.0 issues
<<<http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200606/msg00006.html>>>

Farrukh: The current issue list is unofficial. It needs to be organized
and condensed into official list at regrep Wiki. Biggest bug for errata
is to fix the missing pictures in ebRIM and ebRS.

<some discussion on what is allowed as errata and errata process>

Farrukh: Perhaps we do a 3.1 spec and not do an errata?

Kathryn: Lets identify the minimum set of errata candidates and then
decide.

ACTION: Farrukh, identify initial errata candidates

7. Need to start IPR mode process

ACTION: Everyone look at IPR Mode options for discussion in next
meeting:

FAQ: <http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php>
Comparison of Modes: <http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php#1.2>


--
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com