The issues in question are:
http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/WSCALENDAR-459
http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/WSCALENDAR-420
I suggest we revisit these in the Friday call.
Moving the randomization thing to EI seemed OK to me at the time since I am on that committee as well. After reviewing the original request,
there is a much bigger picture here. There was a simple solution proposed in the original issue.
I totally missed end time issue and should have caught it in the document anyway. The CIM supports intervals as both duration and start/end
times. See below. The suggested language in the original issue seems to easily resolve this.
Xtensible Solutions
From: Jamie Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:22 PM
To: ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Laurent Liscia; Chet Ensign
Subject: [ws-calendar] SGIP feedback on WS-Calendar
We're continuing to get significant negative feedback at the management level about the fit between WS-Calendar, in the shape it's being finalized, and the perceived
technical needs of the SGIP standards set into which it's being offered.
The issues, which sometimes have degenerated to impolite correspondence, seem to swirl mostly around end-time and the randomization flag.
Though, really, my guess is that this is a subset of the larger set of issues recently JIRA'd by Aaron Snyder, one of the SGIP technical champions for this topic area. It's possible that not all of the latter JIRA tickets are actionable, but -- whatever
their technical merit -- SGIP staff's impression that they are not being addressed will be a significant obstacle to approval of the standard by the SGIP.
I'd like to attend your meeting scheduled for this Friday and gain a better understanding of whether the disconnect here is deliberate. The OASIS TC unqualifiedly has
the right to adopt whatever final work product your voting majority chooses. If it's going to be immediately unacceptable to the utilities who are an intended user, though, that would be enough of a disappointment to the various SGIP stakeholders (FERC, NIST
and the White House, in the US), that we'd like to see that coming well in advance, and understand why.
Regards Jamie Clark
James Bryce Clark, General Counsel
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
www.identi.ca/JamieXML
www.twitter.com/JamieXML
http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml
http://facebook.com/oasis.open