Re: [uoml-x] Fwd: ISO PAS program path, issues

["allison shi" <allison_shi@sursen.com>]

I think Stephen is right, we do have the uoml-schema as listed at:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/uoml-x/v1.0/cs01/uoml-schema-cs01.xsd,
I will ask for putting it to the right place.

Regarding the maintenance issue, I think we want to keep it within
OASIS and  UOML-X TC takes responsible for it.

Regarding the three questions Jamie raised in his message to Members
of the UOML TC:

1. OASIS quality and process rules for submissions.
for more evidence of maturity, if the requirement of "statement of
use" from OASIS changes to five,  Yes, we can provide more "statement
of use" by our clients, including government users, the only problems
is they are not OASIS members. As you know there are still not a lot
of OASIS members in China. Also does it apply to UOML since we had
already been voted to be OASIS standard?

2. JTC1 votes for the substantial quality of UOML.
As Stephen mentioned, we do have a schema related to UOML, we can
provide it to ISO. UOML is XML-based, and XML is a way for UOML to
send and receive instructions. Conformance to UOML means to conform
UOML implemented schema, and all the semantics which we defined in the
Specification.

In practice, there are some applications which based UOML schema and
follow the UOML semantics, then they can conform UOML.

Those are my understanding, can anyone else share your thought on this?

3.JTC1 issues with shared control and maintenance.

Jamie, you are right. OASIS UOML-X TC wishes to continue to develop
and maintain the specification. Since UOML is an interface standard,
not like ODF a data structure standard, so we expect that UOML
standard is not going to have a lot of changes. It will help us to
solve the maintenace issue between JTC1 and OASIS. Of course, other
than that we will also follow what ever JTC1 and OASIS's rules about
this issue.

SO to answer Jamies 's question:
--If the UOML-X TC plans to contine:
Yes, we do.
--If not, what we can say to JTC1 about individual experts, and future
plans for UOML;
Not a issue since we are going to continue.
--If it would be accepable to the TC memebers to let JTC1 do the
specification maintenace after the UOML TC ends.
If in the future UOML TC ends, I think we should let JTC1 to do the
maintenace job. What do you guys think?

Best rgds,
Allison Shi
co-chair, UOML-X TC

2009/1/16 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>
>
> The OASIS ballot did include the schema
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=1532
>
> I think maybe the schema just didn't get included on the
> docs site http://docs.oasis-open.org/uoml-x/v1.0/os/  . Looks
> like it was meant to be there, wasn't it?
> It was listed for the ballot as
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/uoml-x/v1.0/cs01/uoml-schema-cs01.xsd
> and I seem to remember it being renamed, reflecting OASIS standard
> status, as uoml-schema.xsd - or should it be uoml-schema-os.xsd?
>
> So I guess we need it added at http://docs.oasis-open.org/uoml-x/v1.0/os/
> and http://docs.oasis-open.org/uoml-x/v1.0/
>
> There is a further complexity for ISO path if the maintenance process
> once in ISO is at all in doubt - how it might affect a 'security module' which
> I thought was to be the next step for UOML. This would, I would think,
> be work to progress in the OASIS UOML-X TC. Maybe that would not be
> a problem.
>
> Further issue with progressing after any possible ISO acceptance
> might be risk of duplicated effort, and worse, risk that there will be
> diverging paths of development/maintenance in OASIS UOML-X TC
> and JTC1.
>
> Would UOML-X TC members be required to join JTC1 to continue
> with any UOML maintenance? Would there be a resource issue with
> that and a need to close the TC to prevent duplication?
>
> Would there be any change between what has previously happened
> with ebXML, ODF, etc in ISO and what would happen now? I don't
> hear of problems for ebXML now it is ISO 15000 so maybe there would
> be a chance of no major problems for UOML if it went that way. Could
> it be that the high-profile story regarding ODF and ISO was a unique one
> less than likely to be repeated. After all it was likely to happen that things
> wouldn't all go smoothly in the office document standardisation when so
> much was at stake whereas this is less likely to affect UOML perhaps.
> Maybe the story might be repeated but it seems very unlikely to me
> (I could be wrong of course).
>
> However, does UOML yet have enough of a profile with those who would
> be considering it in ISO? If it doesn't, would that be a problem? Perhaps
> the problems for ODF, etc were due to the very high profile so maybe lower
> profile is good ??
>
> These are the things which spring to mind with me.
>
> Best regards
>
> Steve
>
>
> --
> Stephen D. Green
>
> Document Engineering Services Ltd
>
>
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/1/15 allison shi <allison_shi@sursen.com>:
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > There I forward Jamie Clark's message regarding our TC's UOML Part 1 v1.0
> > submitting to ISO by using OASIS PAS process.
> >
> > There are two attached files, please review them and open to discuss.
> > Any questions, concerns, and answers to Jamie's questions are welcomed to
> > post here. If necessary, a TC meeting will be held afterward.
> >
> > Best rgds,
> >
> > Allison Shi
> > co-chair, UOML-X TC
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
> > Date: 2009/1/15
> > Subject: ISO PAS program path, issues
> > To: allison shi <allison_shi@sursen.com>, Alex Wang <alexwang@sursen.com>
> > Cc: laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org, ÁõÃ÷¾ê LMJ <liumingjuan@sursen.com>
> >
> >
> > Alex and Allison:
> >
> > I have sent two attachments.  The first is a draft of the 'explantory
> > report' that we would send to JTC1 with a UOML submission.
> > The second generally explains the JTC1 issues for UOML.  Both are suitable
> > for sharing with your TC, if you like.
> >
> > These drafts contain three questions, and we have one additional concern.
> >  We would like to discuss them with you directly by telephone or Skype.  May
> > I suggest Beijing Friday morning (our late Thursday afternoon) or Beijing
> > Tuesday morning (our late Monday afternoon)?  Some other time that you
> > suggest may also be fine.
> >
> > Thank you and kind regards  Jamie
> >
> > ~ James Bryce Clark
> > ~ Director of Standards Dev., OASIS
> > ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
> > ~ HQ phone: +1 978 667 5115 x203, mobile +1 310 293 6739
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >