RE: [xtm-wg] Did we vote to dissolve subgroups?

["Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Need a wireless job?  Look here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9113/4/_/337252/_/969334842/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Andrius,

The whole point here is to be sure that we'll get a spec out for the
deadline we agreed upon.

I think you're right in the sense that we might have to collect use cases
over time and there is no reason to stop this activity. However, we should
not
allow the new requirements that we'll discover over time to impose upon
the modeling and syntax work after the next meeting, because if we do so,
we ll never have a spec out in time.

I think we should consider the subgroups as being influential until our next
meeting, and after that we can still continue thinking and collecting
information
about these subjects, but expect to influence only version 2
rather than version 1.

That's my understanding of the essence of the discussion. I think there was
a common
understanding that this was the thing to do, even if there is no formal
mention on that
point?

If some of you have a different opinion about what was reflected at the
meeting, please
let us know. If I have been biaised here, I'm prepared to adjust to what is
the common
understanding of the situation.

Michel

==========================================
Michel Biezunski, InfoLoom, Inc.
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Email: mb@infoloom.com  Web: www.infoloom.com
==========================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrius Kulikauskas [mailto:ms@ms.lt]
> Sent: September 19, 2000 2:22 AM
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Did we vote to dissolve subgroups?
>
>
>
> Hi, Steve, Michele, All,
>      Just a technical point.  Is it true that we have already voted to
> dissolve the subgroups at the October meeting?
>      I remember the idea of dissolving the subgroups as being written in
> the minutes, available at http://www.egroups.com/xtm-wg/files/
>
> > An intermediate meeting should be held in mid October, at which
> the Subgroups will deliver their work, and then be dissolved.
> > Version 1.0 of the XTM Specification should be completed
> between mid October and early December.
>
> It surprised me at the time, but it was a very busy meeting, and I made
> no mention of it, waiting to see if it would be put to a vote.  To my
> understanding, no such motion was ever made or voted on.  The motion
> that did pass states:
>
> > MOTION: RESOLVED: The Modeling Subgroup's request to extend its
> mandate is denied, and we charter the following new
> > Subgroups:
> >
> > Interchange Syntax Subgroup [ISS]
> >
> > The mission of the Interchange Syntax Subgroup is to develop an
> interchange syntax for topic maps.
> >
> > Conceptual Modeling Subgroup [CMS]
> >
> > It is the mission of the Conceptual Modeling Subgroup to:
> >
> >      Complete the 13250 conceptual model
> >      Develop the XTM conceptual model
> >      Define relationships to other conceptual models
> >
> > Use Cases Subgroup [UCS]
> >
> > It is the mission of the Use Cases Subgroup to:
> >
> >      Identify representative use cases of XTM,
> >      Derive requirements of XTM from the use cases
> >      Evaluate XTM against requirements
> >
> > ADOPTED.
>
>      It's a technical point, but my opinion is that no decision to
> dissolve the subgroups was ever made.  In fact, the minutes, though very
> useful, reflect Michele's notes, which tended to record the
> conversation, without reference to who spoke or whether it was agreed by
> the group or not.  All of the votes that we made were extremely
> carefully worded, and they make no mention of dissolution.  There was no
> opportunity or reason to discuss whether or not to dissolve.
>      I think it would be good to clarify this before the meeting so we
> don't have to waste time then.  Some argued that we will all be working
> together after October and therefore the subgroups must be dissolved.
> However, it may be that our work together is helped by the subgroups.  I
> myself prefer to leave this matter open as it would help me if I myself
> had the opportunity to take initiative to collect more use cases through
> the Use Case Subgroup.  At the meeting we can always dissolve or
> continue the subgroups as we see fit, but it would be unfortunate to
> start without knowing where we are starting from on this issue.
>      I write in response to Patrick Durusau's letter:
>
> > I am sure everyone in the Use Case subgroup would like to make
> the October
> > meeting a productive one (particularly since we dissolve thereafter).
>
>      Thanks,
>
> Andrius Kulikauskas
> Director
> Minciu Sodas
> http://www.ms.lt
> ms@ms.lt
> +1 (773) 586-6280 in Chicago through September
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>


To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com