OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2011

Attendees: Farrukh, Carl, Oliver, Kathryn
Minute Taker: Farrukh

Draft agenda:

1. Welcome
2. Approval of minutes from February 3rd (see email minutes)


F410F57DEDDC0049ADEB2886CC15060B0166F6B7E8@XCH-NW-03V.nw.nos.boeing.com" type="cite">
3. Discussion for v4.0 One multipart standard, or multiple standards.

  • Farrukh: Made the case for 1 standard (ebXML RegRep 4.0) with 2 parts (ebRIM and ebRS)
    • ebRIM and ebRS are always reved together and have a tight dependency between them
    • We do not want to encourage the separate adoption of ebRIM without ebRS as was done for RegRep 3 by OGC. Feel that this has been bad for OGC (they missed ebRS) and bad for RegRep (only had partial adoption of ebRIM at OGC)
    • It is much more administrative work to do multiple standards instead of one multi-part standard
    • Not sure that a single multi-part standard was an option for us in 2006 for RegRep 3 or else we would likely have chosen it
  • Oliver: Likes the separation of the information model from the interface / protocol. Agrees with 1 standard with two parts proposal
  • Carl: Which options is better for ISO submission
    • Farrukh: Last ISO submission was single standard ISO 15000 and 4 parts (we were part 3 and 4)
    • Robin: Corrected that it was 5 parts and not 4
    • Robin: Asked whether there would be any issue if RegRep 4 was submitted to ISO sometime after OASIS standardization separate from rest of ebXML specs given the history
    • Farrukh: Conversations with OASIS staff in the past indicated that this should not be an issue and that we can do ISO submission in future independent of other ebXML specs
    • Kathryn: Took Action Item to ask Jamie this question
  • Kathryn: Agrees with 1 standard with two parts proposal
  • Robin:
    • Back in 2005 time frame TC process was in transition but language on single standard with multiple parts much clearer now
    • Potential need for a master document
    • See TC handbook for details.
    • OpenDocument is a similar example while SAML and XACML are not similar because they have profiles on top of core specs as opposed to one multi-part core spec

  • DECISION: All approved 1 standard (ebXML RegRep 4.0) with 2 parts (ebRIM and ebRS) and a cover document

  • Farrukh
    • Asked if he could send next spec Working Draft to Robin for review and feedback before sending to TC for final review and approval. This is to make sure that the spec bundle meets the requirements for public review submission while minimizing rework
    • Asked if Robin could send links to OpenOffice example
    • Took Action Item to send develop the next WD to align with
  • Robin
    • Took Action Item to send annotated links to OpenOffice example
    • Took Action Item to review next Working Draft specs before final review and approval

4. Any additional issues?

  • None

Next Meeting: March 17th. This will likely be a short meeting to approve the Next Working Draft (WD6-6) as CD6 and submission of CD6 for a 30 day public review.

Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]