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] What do we want from "TGF v2"?

Thanks Peter, this is a very useful overview of the options on how to proceed.  Just to ensure everyone is starting from the same place, here’s a summary of the various issues that we need to try and draw together into any new TGF v2 format and which Peter’s proposals seek to resolve. 


In no particular order of priority:


Merge Primer and CPL – Chris’ suggestion based on his Smart Cities work of merging the Primer and Core Pattern Language into a single document.   Doing this might help with the criticism of having to read across two documents which is clearly not always easy and presents problems with consistency and repetition.  But would it leave us with a single, very large, (or even too large) document which might be too big to handle?  And would it mean a lot of material which is currently Non-Standard becomes Standard, and do we want that?  And would we combine the current Product Matrix document into the new merged document?


OASIS PAS Submission to ISO/JTC1 – JTC1 will only accept ”technical” standards according to Oliver and Peter and therefore are very unlikely to accept many of the Core Patterns, so what would happen with the non-techie ones?  OASIS only has a PAS submission arrangement with JTC1  so getting the whole TGF into other parts of ISO probably isn’t possible even if we could find the right committee. 


The future shape of the Core and other Patterns – Peter’s work on the CAMSS patterns is meant to provide the shape for adding new patterns in the future.  Do they become part of the Core set or are they separate?  If the latter how are the various sets documented and related to each other and the Primer etc, and how would they fit into any new single document?


Core Terminology and Reference Model – Peter is considering my suggested update on this and hopefully answering my question of does this need to become a new separate Committee Note or just an update to the current Primer?  Again if it needs to be a separate document under the current construct how would it fit into a new single document?


Lite Version – one of the v2 actions is to consider producing a Lite version of the TGF.  On our last call we said No to that but did agree to try and produce a high-level, easy to read summary/overview in the new v2.  Where and how would this fit into any new single merged document?





From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Peter F Brown
Sent: 16 July 2013 19:50
To: 'Tgf'
Subject: [tgf] What do we want from "TGF v2"?



Together with John, Chris and Oliver, I have put together a short slide deck identifying some ideas about *how* we could move forward with future deliverables.

This should be read together with comments and materials already circulated on *what* we should be covering in future deliverables.

Both of these issues will be discussed on this week’s call.

Best regards,





Peter F Brown

Independent Consultant


”Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform”

200 S Barrington Ave., #49719

Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA

Tel: +1.310.694.2278



Member of:




Follow me:








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