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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tgf message

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


Subject: RE: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?


On second thoughts…

I’m holding off on my recommendation until at least after Friday’s discussion – there may be an argument (John’s point about “quick wins”) for having distinct deliverables that can be moved forward and approved as separate and independent entities.

 

Peter

 

From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 01 February, 2011 10:58
To: TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?

 

Hi:

I have now loaded to the document work area, a series of skeleton outlines using what existing material is available from the various contributions so far. SO we have:

1 – TGF Core Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

2 – Business Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

3 – Customer Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

4 – Channel Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

6 – Tools and Models for the Business Management Framework (proposed Non-Standards-Track deliverable)

 

I have checked with TC Administration what the procedures are for multi-part documents and they have pointed me to the following excerpt from the TC Admin Handbook at http://docs.oasis-open.org/TChandbook/Reference/WPQualityRequirements.html (my highlighting added):

Multi-Part Work Products

A Multi-Part Work Product may consist of:

§  a single prose document,

§  a single prose document and one or more related files such as schema, dtds, classes, etc.

§  multiple prose documents,

§  multiple prose documents and one or more related files.

The Work Product, even if multi-part, must have a single name and version number, and must be approved at each stage by a single Work Product Ballot. That is, the constituent parts cannot advance independently of each other or stand on their own.

In the case of multiple prose documents, there should be a single primary prose document that then refers to the distinct parts. Each distinct part should clearly state that it is part of the Work Product and refer to both the top-level document and any other related prose documents.

FOR EXAMPLE The Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.2 Work Product consists of four prose documents, with the first being the primary:

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 Part 1: OpenDocument Schema

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 Part 2: Recalculated Formula

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 Part 3: Packages

In light of this, I would propose to proceed as follows:

-          We open a request for a standards-track deliverable entitled the “Transformational Government Framework (TGF);

-          then create the three management framework documents as parts in accordance with those guidelines;

-          we advance the package as required and decide at any time to munge the four documents into one in accordance with the rules

 

For the Committee Notes, I am less sure, now that I have had an opportunity to go through existing material.

a)      I think that there is a case for a substantive piece on SOA - although we don’t have much primary material of our own at present, we can certainly refer to and do a synthesis of the most important documents from the SOA reference model and reference architecture framework;

b)      I also think there is sufficient and distinct material to do a Note covering the tools and models for Business Management – I have already submitted such a skeleton.

c)       I currently have no material (nor a clear picture in my mind) of what could/should go in to a Committee Note covering tools and models for Customer Management, particular as material including the ‘Concentrix’ and identity management are already included in the Customer Management Framework.

d)      I do not yet see a clear case for keeping the tools and models parts of Channel Management separate from the main Channel Management Framework and, given their nature, would probably be better placed in the main Channel Management Framework deliverable

 

So I’d suggest that we start two Committee Notes for a) and b) above and hold off on the other two for the time being.

 

If there is no push-back on this approach, I will start the process with TC Admin to get hold of the formal templates and naming schemes for our docs.

 

Regards,

 

Peter F Brown

Independent Consultant

Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png@01CB9639.DBFD6470

Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies

Web         www.peterfbrown.com

Blog          pensivepeter.wordpress.com

LinkedIn  www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter

Twitter     @pensivepeter

P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA

Tel: +1.310.694.2278

 



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