[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ttsc] Agenda for next TTSC weekly meeting
Hi Eduardo, The agenda was sent to ttsc. The minutes were also sent to ttsc yesterday, so check ttsc mail for the last couple of days. I've also attached the minutes of the meeting where those priorities were first set, which gives a bit more of the background discussion. All said, though, I do believe those requiements will be superseded by more user-oriented requirements as mentioned in the minutes from this week's meeting. -A Eduardo Gutentag wrote: > Thanks Chee-Kai for sending this, since I had not seen the message > included below - what list was it sent to? > > Although I'm listed among the members of the TTSC, I have to > confess I have not been following its activities closely; having > seen the priorities, though, I might start doing so because I'm > pretty surprised seeing requirements (1) and (2) given priority > B while (5) is given A; I would have thought that openness and > platform independence would have been A automatically, but perhaps > I take for granted what people in other environments do not. > > Chin Chee-Kai wrote: > >> Oops, sorry for not appearing in yesterday/this-morning's call. >> >> I had wanted to join, but whilst waiting for the midnight clock >> to strike, I kinda fell prey to sleeping bug and woke up to >> find my morning instead. >> >> Did the group get on to anything? >> I think the list of items in the "Tools Requirements" >> below look great. There are more aspects than just prioritization of >> each of the items. >> >> Anyone else with thoughts on them? >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Chin Chee-Kai >> SoftML >> Tel: +65-6820-2979 >> Fax: +65-6743-7875 >> Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net >> http://SoftML.Net/ >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Anne Hendry wrote: >> >> >>>> The next meeting of the UBL Tools and Techniques Subcommittee >>>> will take place approximately 16 hours from now at 16:00 UTC >>>> (8:00 am California - see link below for other locations). >>>> >>>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2003&mon=11&day=21&hour=15&min=0&sec=0 >>>> >>>> >>>> ##################################################### >>>> STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS >>>> U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145 >>>> Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352 >>>> Access code: 5705229 >>>> ##################################################### >>>> >>>> TTSC Charter: >>>> To evaluate and recommend to the TC the tools and techniques >>>> to be used in the development, quality assurance, documentation, >>>> maintenance, and revision of the UBL XML data formats, and write >>>> and maintain guidelines reflecting these recommendations. >>>> >>>> >>>> Agenda: >>>> >>>> 1. Welcome from Co-Chairs and appointment of Secretary to take >>>> minutes. >>>> 2. Review of Agenda >>>> 3. Tools Requirements (see below) >>>> 4. Review of Tools paper (Gunther will send to list) >>>> 5. Schedule >>>> 6. Other Business >>>> 7. Next Meeting >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------ >>>> Tools Requirements >>>> ------------------ >>>> >>>> In our previous/last meeting we reviewed requirements for tools. >>>> Since the focus of the Tools SC may have changed since we >>>> last discussed requirements, it might be useful to review >>>> these requirements and the priorities we gave to them at >>>> the last meeting: >>>> >>>> Tools Requirements: >>>> 1.) non-proprietary storage format: Priority B. >>>> 2.) availability on multiple platforms: Priority B. >>>> 3.) configurable to syntax rules: Priority B >>>> 4.) configurable to customization rules (context-based modeling): >>>> Priorize B >>>> 5.) provides file versioning / source control / concurrent editing: >>>> Priority A >>>> 6.) requires no manual editing: Priority B >>>> 7.) supports XMI change format: Priority B? >>>> 8.) is an integrated tool set: Priority B? >>>> 9.) provides collabortive central source repository: Priority B >>>> 10.) enforces a controlled vocabulary: Priority B >>>> 11.) provides a single data/source repository: Priority B >>>> 12.) low (no) cost: Priority A >>>> 13.) Modelling systems: Priority B >>>> 14.) Storage systems: Priority A >>>> 15.) Transformation systems: Priority B >>>> 16.) Interface generation (Java, C++, Perl, etc) systems: Priority A >>>> 17.) Schema generation systems - Generation of UBL based XML Schemas >>> >>> >>>> from and to >>> >>> >>>> 18.) Tools for contextualization of schemas (eg. to local text): >>>> Priority B >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >>>> roster of the OASIS TC), go to >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ttsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of the OASIS TC), go to >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ttsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> >
The UBL Tools and Techniques Subcommittee met on Thursday June 30 2003 at 15:00 GMT.
U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145
Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352
Access code: 5705229
Attendees:
TTSC Members:
Dave Carlson -
Chee-Kai Chin Y
Arofan Gregory -
Lisa Seaburg Y
Paul Thorpe Y
Gunther Stuhec Y
Eduardo Gutentag -
Anne Hendry Y
There is a quorum.
Anne will take minutes.
Agenda:
A.) Talking about the charter
There is quite a bit of other work to do that is higher priority
than reviewing the charter, so unless there are serious objections
to it we will go ahead for now with the current charter:
Charter:
To evaluate and recommend to the TC the tools and techniques
to be used in the development, quality assurance, documentation,
maintenance, and revision of the UBL XML data formats, and write
and maintain guidelines reflecting these recommendations.
Everyone present was in agreement to keep the charter as is.
B.) Sorting and prioritizing of all tool requirements
In general we will classify the requirements into A (high), B (medium),
and C (low). We agreed that the [schema] Processing tool requirements
are highest priority (A), since there is immediate effort needed to help
get the schema development tools working for the .80 and 1.0 releases,
and also to help clarify the NDR rules. The Modeling tool reqirements
are medium priority (B).
Requirements
============
1.) non-proprietary storage format: Priority B.
2.) availability on multiple platforms: Priority B.
It was undecided whether or not this includes instance generation.
Otherwise we will be mainly using Java and Perl only,
which are cross-platform, so there should be no problem.
3.) configurable to syntax rules: Priority B
Vendor tools must be configurable to UBL rules.
4.) configurable to customization rules: Priorize B
This refers to context-based modeling.
5.) provides version control: Priority A
This relates to file versioning and source control more than to schema
or model versioning - the abililty of several members to edit files
concurrently to complete the UBL releases.
6.) requires no manual editing: Priority B
Should tools be based on UML?
Gunther has begun tools which use SVG to model and generate XML schemas
and store them in a native XML database. Poseidon and Objecteering
are free to a point, but have no xml interfaces - you can't exchange
between UML class diagrams and XML schemas without having to buy
additional XML components. We need to understand how to store models
in a database and how to generate context-based models.
There seem to be two areas we need to address:
- modeling system tools
- processing tools
Gunther suggested to write two proposals - one on each of these two
areas - how to approach from the tools point of view. There are several
aspects to these, such as working through a web browser or some other
text application or by a direct interface to another application,
generating instance-processing systems, etc.
Chee-Kai noted that he has already developed Java classes that generate
UBL-conformant instances and a simple instance storing interface.
This was done for 0p70 - user data was entered via a Java text GUI
which is saved as a UBL-conformant schema instance. This is not
a processing system in terms of massaging data later on, though
that piece could be done later.
Also, FPSC is focused on generation of presentation formats
(transforming instances into UN edocs, XSL FOs, etc.) but we
can say we could write a presentation-based generator.
Chee-Kai stated that it would be more useful for TTSC to recommend
best-practices in terms of XML-related generation (eg. performance
in container issue).
Chee-Kai thought that it would be beneficial to revisit what TTSC
is trying to deliver. A document is nice, but it may or may not be a
formal normative document. In particular the requirements currently
are a mixture of LC and instance processing rquirements. In addition,
people will do whatver is a good tradeoff bewteen cost and usability,
so it's not something the TTSC would be able to mandate.
7.) supports XMI change format: Priority B?
8.) is an integrated tool set: Priority B?
Gunther noted that GEFEG has made an interface for generation of XML
schemas from xsl files and backwards; we could do a proof of concept
with this. Anne noted that a main criteria for any tool we use
within UBL is that it is free and has no lingering IP issues.
Gunther will ask about this in the CSC on Wednesday.
9.) provides collabortive central source repository: Priority B
Central cvs/rccs-type environment.
10.) enforces a controlled vocabulary: Priority B
11.) provides a single data/source repository: Priority B
12.) low (no) cost: Priority A
13.) Modelling systems: Priority B
a.) based on XML Schemas (like XML Spy)
b.) based on UML Class Diagrams or graphical representation
of the core components (may be based on SVG)
14.) Storage systems: Priority A
a.) native XML Databases
b.) flat file
c.) SQL Databases
15.) Transformation systems: Priority B
Tools for writing efficient XSLT scripts for transforming into HTML
or another kind XML-based business language
16.) Interfaces generation systems: Priority A
a.) Automatic generation of Java-Classes
b.) Automatic generation of C++-Classes
c.) Automatic generation of Perl-Classes
d.) Tools for generating user interfaces automatically
which are based on UBL XML Schemas
It was noted that many tools can do the things listed above but we
are not recommending tools - only stating what the tools should do.
Anyone playing with UBL schemas doing development will already be
using tools that support development in these languages. So there
is not much value in developing recommendations in these areas.
It was agreed that we don't need the processing tools paper that
was discussed in #6 above.
Gunther propsed then to write a first draft of the paper on schema
modeling. Chee-Kai noted that it was important for longevity of
this work to connect any modeling proposal to contextualization.
Any modeling paper should refer to the way contextualization is being
recommended, otherwise there is no value of this paper because there
is nothing particularly special about schema modeling outside the
context of UBL that people can't read up on themelves.
This should be part of #18.
17.) Schema generation systems - Generation of UBL based XML Schemas from and to
a.) UML tools,
b.) Excel-spreadsheet,
c.) Java,
d.) C++,
e.) Perl-Classes
18.) Tools for contextualization of schemas (eg. to local text): Priority B
C.) Look for volunteers of the high-prioritized requirement
Anne raised the question of who implements the tools for creating the schemas.
Revisiting the TTSC charter it doesn't say anything about implementing anything,
it just talks about recommending. So if the TTSC is not responsible for any
implementations, who is? This is the top priority of the UBL TC right now -
to get the releases out the door. So far there has been no talk in the TTSC
meetings of working on the immediate need - the schema generation tools and
review and implementation of the N&D Rules. This needs to be addressed.
Everyone agrees that the higher priority is to test existing tools and ensure
they generate correct schemas according to current NDR rules. It is also
important to create recommendations on how to develop tools for modeling,
but that should wait for now because everyone is too involved in building
.80 to review any proposals that don't relate to the immediate work.
Gunther will wait until after we develop the .80 release to generate the
proposal on modeling.
Gunther voiced concern that N&D rules are still changing each week, which
makes it hard to build tools using the new rules. Also, all rules in the
NDR Rules checklist are not as simple as what is being voted on, since
the rules have been developed over time with many contributors/nuances.
Lisa stated that NDR is reviewing rules in quorum, so they are updating them
weekly, mostly for clarification. However the rules in the NDR Rules Checklist
that are noted as 'ACCEPTED' (in the comment column) will not undergo further
NDR review/changes (other than those to address issues raised with a rule).
Gunther agreed to run the Perl script using the new rules as a cross-check
for the work that Chee-Kai has been doing. This way we will have two views
of the new rules - looking at both the Perl script and Chee-Kai's tools.
All voted rules from NDR group should be implemented in both tools.
D.) Every volunteer should proof the following:
- which tools are useful for our requirements?
- which features of the tools are useful for our requirements?
- which steps can be done manually or automatically?
- which features must be added for our requirements?
- which developments must we do (tools, functions) that we can use UBL XML in this tools?
- which NDR rules must be changed that we can use UBL XML more efficiently in this tools?
Rescheduled to next meeting.
E.) Defining a time schedule for the described steps above (requirements and testings)
Rescheduled to next meeting.
F.) Other business
None.
G.) Adjourn: 17:35 GMT
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]