Hi,
We had a very fruitful discussion at the small working meeting that we set up and help on 30 January. detailed notes below.
As per recommendation 5 below, the main action item – if we agree to proceed - would be for us to start work on a high-level “concept map” of the existing CAMSS deliverables to identify the main themes that should be covered and captured
as a new set of patterns.
Regards,
Peter
Considerations
What is the nature of the deliverable that we are aiming for? Purely a ‘Committee Note’ or rather a standards-track (‘Working Draft” > ‘Committee Specification’ and optionally > ‘OASIS Standard’)? Consensus on the latter approach;
If we take the standards-track route, what are the conformance requirements? Maybe take inspiration from current TGC Core Patterns where a “light” touch” approach to conformance clauses can be used when needed (along lines of “you MUST
consider this issue x and determine whether it is important for you..”). We should avoid too heavy a lock-in to conformance requirements in detail at this stage at least.
How do we gain buy in and traction? TGF as a committee note and the PL core patterns are a codified set of ideas that reflect tried-and-tested practices from a number of real-world programs; CAMSS, as it stands, is less obviously a reflection
of existing practices than a prescription. We need to be aware of that when “selling” the idea of the OASIS TGF TC taking on CAMSS.
What happens if the TC does or wishes to “go another way” than that described in CAMSS? To what extent are we bound into both the process and detail of what CAMSS states? Or can we be merely “inspired” by CAMSS as an initial starting point
and be free to do what we want? We need to consider whether the TGF TC intends that we create a high-level set of TGF patterns that draws on CAMSS general principles that could have global application and not tied to CAMSS specifically (even if we reference
it); or whether we want to be considered as the “official” governance and maintenance authority for the existing CAMSS specification. Consensus was that these are not mutually exclusive.
Bottom line for the TC is that any methodology for the assessment of standards would be a useful adjunct to the TGF and CAMSS at least exists and can provide a trigger for our work.
We need also to be aware of the EU standardisation environment as it stands: the new EU Standardisation legislation; the recommendation for a list of “approved or recognised” standards; the role of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSP) in
determining that list; the possible role of CAMSS as a methodology to be used by the MSP in the process of determining that list.
Conclusions/Recommendations
1.
Continue discussions with the EU Commission, particularly to see if they are willing and able to give OASIS the formal responsibility for formalising CAMSS and being the governance and maintenance authority. This might include that a
new, specific, “CAMSS TC” be established rather than it being part of the TGF work;
2.
Whatever the relations with the EU going forward, there is value
in any case in developing a new set of TGF PL Patterns covering the CAMSS domain – a methodology for assessing standards – but that remain as a high-level, abstract and generally/globally applicable set of patterns extending the initial core patterns.
Whether this set of patterns is entitled CAMSS or not is an open question;
3.
As the EU Commission has already indicated, OASIS is free to take the existing CAMSS documents as input for any work we do, under the “public re-use” principle of all publicly accessible documents. We should nonetheless keep the Commission
abreast of our intentions and value for them of what we do;
4.
In terms of our TC work in this area, our priority for the moment should be in developing the high-level pattern set;
5.
Once the whole TC gives us a general assent to this approach, we should start – in the same manner as we did for the original core patterns – by parsing the entire CAMSS deliverables and identifying the distinct concepts that could be
established as new Patterns. For example, in TGF, we produced a large concept map (copy attached) and from that decided which level of detail we wanted to follow.
Cheers,
Peter
|
|
Peter F Brown Independent Consultant |
|
Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform |
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
|
Member of:
|
||||
|
Follow me: |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
