Meeting Minutes for OASIS SDD, 2008



Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 10/08/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from September 10 and October 1 (no quorum October 1).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Proposal on Descriptor Language Bundle (Randy)

A. Resume review (begun earlier) of the collection of pending specification updates resulting from all prior approved proposals and discussions (Merri)

B. Discussion Items:

i. id attribute in AuthorizationConstraintType -- Complete?

ii. Request for assistance: specification text for previously approved proposals.

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

1. Minutes from September 10 and October 1 approved without objection.

2. Administrative:

a. None new.

3. v1.0 status

a. None new.

4. v1.1 items:

a. id attribute (from previous discussion): the id attribute has been removed in the schema. We agreed that for consistency, Randy will also add the description, shortDescription properties in the schema. We also agreed that we will add AuthConstraints to the list of ConditionalConstraints in the schema and specification.

b. Proposal on DescriptorLanguageBundle: approved as posted after discussion.

c. Continued review of collection of pending specification changes. Items below are with respect to the draft specification that Merri has posted in “Working Documents” on the TC page (v1.1 spec draft, Revision 5).

i. Lines 1193 & 1239, ImplementedBy: changes are good as is; Jason to provide example.

ii. Line 1222, Property: add “instance(s)” after both occurrences of “resource”.

iii. Lines 1256, 1261 – 1263, ElementValueType: change the explanation to “The value MUST be represented as one of the types defined in ElementValueType” (with the existing reference to that section). Need to make this same corresponding change in other sections in the specification.

iv. Lines 1590 – 1602 VariableExpressionType (also applies for Line 161 substitutionType): we generally agreed that the changes are OK as is, but after discussion about changing ArgumentType from an attribute group to an Element to be more consistent with ElementValue type (also related to ContentSelectionFeatureType and BaseParameterType). Merri will consult with Jeff. Resolved that we need to revisit this issue, which had resulted in a “global change” in the specification that might not make sense in some cases.

5. Discussion items:

a. None new

6. Old/new business

a. None new.

Adjourned 11:55 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 10/01/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from September 10.

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Proposal on Descriptor Language Bundle (Randy)

A. Resume review (begun earlier) of the collection of pending specification updates resulting from all prior approved proposals and discussions (Merri)

B. Discussion Items:

i. id attribute in AuthorizationConstraintType

ii. Request for assistance: specification text for previously approved proposals.

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We do NOT have a quorum.

7. Minutes from September 10 approval deferred (no quorum).

8. Administrative:

a. None new.

9. v1.0 status

a. None new.

10. v1.1 items:

a. Proposal on DescriptorLanguageBundle: deferred (no quorum)

b. Continued review of collection of pending specification changes. Items below are with respect to the draft specification that Merri has posted in “Working Documents” on the TC page (v1.1 spec draft, Revision 4).

Deferred the specification review (no quorum). We agreed to resume the specification review when we have a broader review audience (hopefully next week).

11. Discussion items:

b. None new

12. Old/new business

a. Regarding one old business item about the id attribute on AuthorizationConstraintType, Randy confirmed that this was an error and should not have been included (it wasn’t in the approved proposal). We will remove from the schema and this item is already highlighted for a specification change that we will review.

Adjourned 11:10 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 09/10/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from September 3.

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Resume review (begun last week) of the collection of pending specification updates resulting from all prior approved proposals and discussions (Merri)

B. Discussion Items:

i. Element figures/artwork

ii. id attribute in AuthorizationConstraintType

iii. Request for assistance: specification text for previously approved proposals.

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

13. Minutes from September 3 approved without objection.

14. Administrative:

a. None new.

15. v1.0 status

a. None new.

16. v1.1 items:

a. Continued review of collection of pending specification changes. Items below are with respect to the draft specification that Merri has posted in “Working Documents” on the TC page (v1.1 spec draft, Revision 3).

i. General: Resolved to use the “new new” Oxygen diagrams as the element illustrations throughout the specification. Merri will make these updates (thanks, Merri!).

ii. General: Agreed that we need a “deep dive” into the specification to ensure that we find and update all the places that need to be updated as a result of any deprecations in v1.1 (we already approved deprecating the ResourceType name property, and will have a proposal to deprecate deploymentDescriptor descriptorLanguageBundle property).

iii. Line 598, Topology: Yes, this statement is still true; leave as is.

iv. Lines 793 – 795, DescriptorInfoGroup: we generally agreed that this statement reflected our previous discussion; however, Randy prefers removing descriptorLanguageBundle from deploymentDescriptor entirely (deprecate this property), and removing it from the schema, which would remove the need for this clarifying statement. It was noted that this type is a shared type (in common.xsd), but it can be moved out of common.xsd to packageDescriptor.xsd. Resolved that we would take this action, so this addition to the specification is no longer needed and can be removed. Action: Randy to generate proposal for this; Brent will present in Randy’s absence at a future meeting (note: Randy posted this proposal after the meeting).

v. Line 1172, ResourceType example: This isn’t a good example for this item, either, so when the new example is generated for the corresponding section, this example should be replaced also.

vi. Lines 1709 – 1712, Constraints: Change to Line 1709 is good. In Line 1710, added text is good. Line 1710 – 1711, change the last sentence to simply “Examples are:”, and in Line 1712, add “values” at the beginning of that bullet.

vii. Line 1719 Constraints: OK as is.

viii. Lines 1958 and onward, AuthorizationConstraintType: Brent to suggest minor re-wording of first sentence (Lines 1961 – 1962). Re-word example to be from viewpoint of SDD author rather than runtime (add “… the SDD author can declare that root authority is required”).

Question raised about id property: This property does not exist in any other Constraints, should it be removed? Also, should add description and shortDescription properties to AuthorizationConstraint to be consistent with other Constraints. Action: Randy to review notes and generate proposal about defining or removing id and adding description/shortDescription.

ix. Line 2056, ConditionalResourceConstraintType: we believe that AuthorizationConstraintType probably should be added here; will consider this at the same time we reconsider the preceding items for AuthorizationConstraintType.

x. Line 2072, ConditionalResourceConstraintType property summary & usage notes: In addition to the issue noted in the comment, the description of Name in the summary table does not match the description of Name in the usage notes. Clearly something needs to be changed here; will consider this further later. Action: Jason to generate an example that uses this Type to help determine what is correct and what needs to be corrected.

xi. Line 2329, ResourcePropertyType: Change “may not be sufficient enough” to “is not sufficient”.

xii. Line 2438 – 2439, RequirementType property usage notes: Change “SDD” to “deployment descriptor” (both occurrences); remove “individual”. Action: Brent to propose text and location for corresponding content in the composite/aggregated SDD section. (Update after meeting: Brent doesn’t think another corresponding note is needed; the Aggregation Requirements section refers readers back to this section).

xiii. Lines 2485 & 2491: Good as is.

b. We will resume the specification review in TWO weeks.

17. Discussion items:

c. None new

18. Old/new business

a. NO MEETING NEXT WEEK. Will continue reviewing the remaining items in TWO weeks.

Adjourned 11:50 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 09/03/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from August 20 (no meeting August 27).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Review the collection of pending specification updates resulting from all prior approved proposals and discussions (Merri)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

19. Minutes from August 20 approved without objection (no meeting August 27).

20. Administrative:

a. Brent reminded everyone of the changes to the OASIS TC process that were shared with all members via e-mail.

21. v1.0 status

a. None new.

22. v1.1 items:

a. Review of collection of pending specification changes. Items below are with respect to the draft specification that Merri has posted in “Working Documents” on the TC page.

i. Line 56, copyright: Brent believes that we should keep the copyright as originally specified (2007, 2009). Action: Brent will check OASIS policy and share with TC.

ii. Line 1004, contentType pathname: change “you” to “the SDD author”.

iii. Line 1023 contentType descriptorLanguageBundle: OK.

iv. Line 1154 ResourceType: Discussion about different usage of Name property between Topology and Resulting Resource. Confirmed our previous resolution to deprecate Name property and add text here that indicates that whatever property, if any, is used as the identifier in Topology must match that used in ResultingResource. Action: Jason to suggest the specific text for this.

v. Line 1196 ResourceType name: This property will be removed (deprecated). Action: Brent to determine any OASIS policy/practice for documenting deprecated properties. [Added after meeting: have this information. Suggest leaving this section in, perhaps graying it out, and adding text at the beginning of this item to indicate that this property is deprecated in v1.1]

vi. Line 1381, installableUnitType targetResourceRef: suggest a different example. Action: Jason/Jeff to suggest specific text for a different example.

vii. Line 1705, Constraints: the added text is OK, but want to change the next sentences:

1. Line 1706: remove “a property of”

2. Line 1707” change “different types of resource properties” to “different types of constraints”

3. Line 1708: change “that the property value be” to “such as values that are”

viii. Line 1842, VersionConstraintType: change “At run-time” to “During deployment”

ix. Line 1851, VersionConstraintType: added text is OK, but change line 1851 “resource version” to “version of the resource”

b. Merri also raised the issue that two newer versions of Oxygen produce different diagrams than the ones in the current v1.0 specification and we need to decide (1) which version to use for new diagrams; and (2) if we want to replace all existing diagrams with those created by a newer version of Oxygen so that all diagrams are consistent. Action: Merri to post examples of diagrams produced by each version so that TC can decide these questions [Added after meeting: Merri has posted the examples; please comment by e-mail and we will discuss next week also]

We will resume the specification review next week beginning on line 1955, and also discuss the artwork issue noted earlier and other items (Merri has a couple additional discussion items).

23. Discussion items:

d. None new

24. Old/new business

a. Will continue reviewing the remaining items next week

Adjourned 11:55 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 08/20/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from August 13.

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Continue discussion of a collection of specification clarifications and other related items (Jason & Merri)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

25. Minutes from August 13 approved without objection.

26. Administrative:

a. None new

27. v1.0 status

a. None new.

28. v1.1 items:

a. Continued discussion of collection of minor items, mostly specification clarifications (Jason & Merri): Have been keeping notes on questions & feedback based on Eclipse COSMOS implementation experience. Items below are with respect to the published v1.0 standard at and the draft specification that Merri has posted in “Working Documents” on the TC page.

i. Line 2312, ResourcePropertyType: Jason: consider a type in topology that could have multiple instances (e.g., databaseSystem that could have Oracle and DB2 instances). In this ResourcePropertyType, I’m looking for database name; the resourceRef refers to databaseSystem, which doesn’t allow you to refer to the individual instances of databseSystem. Randy: correct; can’t resolve resource’s property until the resource is instantiated. This is a name resolution issue – it’s the value of the property that we’re interested in. Don’t this we can resolve variables until targeted. After a good deal of discussion, Resolved that the intended use doesn’t match the COSMOS expectation. Merri took notes to add some clarification information to the specification; Jason will update the COSMOS example and take the results of this discussion back to the COSMOS team.

ii. Line 2351 Requirements: similar to previous item. Suggest that information be added to the specification for SDD authors about what is expected/best practices regardless of the runtime; individual runtimes can document their behavior/expectations. Merri has some clarification information to add to the specification.

iii. Line 2716 ResultingResourceType: Resolved that we will strike the sentence that says “Name SHOULD be defined in Topology…”, through the end of that paragraph.

iv. Line 3863 TranslationKey: this relates to the descriptorLanguageBundle issue discussed in a previous call. Resolved that we don’t need to repeat correct use of descriptorLanguageBundle here, but we should refer back to that section where we are adding new guidance.

b. This completes the list of issues we had on the table! Merri will make draft specification updates for all of the open/pending specification items and circulate a draft that we will review at next week’s call.

29. Discussion items:

e. None new

30. Old/new business

a. Will continue reviewing the remaining items next week

Adjourned about noon US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 08/13/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from July 16, 2009 (no quorum to approve these on July 30) AND July 30, 2009(no meeting July 23, no formal meeting August 6).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Continue discussion of a collection of specification clarifications and other related items (Jason & Merri)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

31. Minutes from July 16 and July 30 approved without objection.

32. Administrative:

a. Brief discussion about TC membership. Currently active organizational members of SDD TC are CA, IBM, SAP, SAS. Jason indicated that Eclipse is doing a membership drive and that there might be overlapping interest in the SDD COSMOS project and the OASIS standard, so we might be able to leverage the Eclipse membership drive to identify and attract potential new SDD TC members. Brent to send Jason a list of potential candidate organizations which Jason will take forward to Eclipse as appropriate.

33. v1.0 status

a. None new.

34. v1.1 items:

a. Continued discussion of collection of minor items, mostly specification clarifications (Jason & Merri): Have been keeping notes on questions & feedback based on Eclipse COSMOS implementation experience. Items below are with respect to the published v1.0 standard at and the v1.1 draft specification that Merri has posted in “Working Documents” on the TC page.

i. Line 1194, Name property for ResourceType: Question revolves around use of a resource Name in Topology. Randy’s opinion is that Name shouldn’t be in Topology; it’s an identifier for a resource and isn’t needed in multiple places. Jason indicated that this is a “convenience” property but having it introduces some ambiguity. After some discussion, Resolved that we will deprecate Name in ResourceType and add guidance about resource identification to the effect that a resource needs an identifier but it is not required to be in a property called Name. Within Topology, we will identify a Property that identifies the resource. This property might be, but is not required to be, called Name. If so, it corresponds to the resource Name property; if not, the Profile should map the resource identifier to the property (for example, the property that identifies the resource might be called Label or Tag or Title, in which case the Profile would specify this equivalence mapping of the property that identifies the resource). Merri will generate updates to capture this idea as guidance in the specification.

A good follow-up discussion (not captured here) about usage of such properties ensued, with a general consensus that Jason will capture in updates to the SAS SDD example.

35. Discussion items:

f. None new

36. Old/new business

a. Will continue reviewing the remaining items next week

Adjourned noon US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 07/30/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from July 16, 2009 (no meeting July 23).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Continue discussion of a collection of specification clarifications and other related items (Jason & Merri)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern

MINUTES

We did NOT achieve a quorum.

37. Minutes from July 16 approval deferred until we have a meeting with a quorum.

38. Administrative:

a. Informational: Kirk Wilson indicates that he will be retiring from CA as of tomorrow.

39. v1.0 status

a. None new.

40. v1.1 items:

a. Continued discussion of collection of minor items, mostly specification clarifications (Jason & Merri): Have been keeping notes on questions & feedback based on Eclipse COSMOS implementation experience. Items below are with respect to the published v1.0 standard at . Today we reviewed the changes already made in response to the discussion two weeks ago. We deferred discussion on remaining items until we have a quorum.

i. Lines 779 - 792, descriptorLanguageBundle: change SHOULD to MUST (this sentence implies that a translation file exists). For last item in comment, add text indicating that descriptorLanguageBundle should not generally be in the deploymentDescriptor, but if it is, it must match what is in the packageDescriptor.

ii. Lines 987 – 1004: change “base” to “root”. Add text around line 1022 that refers readers to the SDD example for localization in the paragraph beginning on line 987.

iii. Line 1375 vicinity: the cited example is a good addition; will add it.

iv. Lines 1847 – 1848: Remove “proper”. Add text indicating that if Certified is present, it should be checked first; if Certified is not present, then Supported is used.

v. Line 2381 (table): Need to consider the case when unique ids are required when aggregating. Add text around line 2408 indicating that ids must be unique within an (aggregated) deployment descriptor. Might want corresponding text in the Aggregation section.

41. Discussion items:

g. None new

42. Old/new business

a. Will continue reviewing the remaining items next week (August 6). Neither Brent nor Merri will be available next week, so next week’s meeting will be a general discussion/question and answer session about a few items that need clarification (Jason wants to discuss these with Randy and anyone else who can make it to the meeting next week). We will resume the formal TC business of resolving issues and agreeing on specification changes the following week (August 13).

Adjourned 11:47 noon US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 07/16/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from May 7, 2009 (no meetings between then and today).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Discuss a collection of specification clarifications and other related items (Jason & Merri)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time ** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

43. Minutes from May 7 approved without objection.

44. Administrative:

a. Informational: Chris Robsahm indicates that he will be leaving SAP in August. Chris will investigate SDD interest at his new employer once he is engaged there. Jason also indicated that he is following up with both SAP and Acresso contacts to see if there is renewed interest in active participation there.

45. v1.0 status

a. None new.

46. v1.1 items:

a. Collection of minor items, mostly specification clarifications (Jason & Merri): Have been keeping notes on questions & feedback based on Eclipse COSMOS implementation experience. Items below are with respect to the published v1.0 standard at

i. Line 781, descriptorLanguageBundle: suggest adding that there SHOULD be at least one languageBundle (it’s effectively required if the intent is to display any property values in a language other than what the SDD is composed in – this implies that translationKey effectively, but not strictly, becomes required if any property values are to be displayed) and deprecate use of inline string and add annotations for human-readable content (replaces what was intended to go in the inline strings); location of base package in the resourceBundle goes in the packageDescriptor. Randy: many other properties (name, description, several others) also have translationKey. This same rationale and associated changes apply to all of these properties.

ii. Line 1022, descriptorLanguageBundle: suggest adding text to indicate the URI of a bundle is also included in the packageDescriptor. Randy pointed out that these are just enum values. So instead we probably need to clarify what SHOULD be in the packageDescriptor. Need a more thorough description of this overall element higher up in this section to better describe intended usage (suggest additions around line 721 and/or line 981 – a quick explanation in the specification with a reference to a new example that shows localized content in the Primer). Need to think more about the new example (should it build from an existing example, adding multiple languages, or be a new example? Jason has a COSMOS example and will send that to the TC for review).

iii. Line 1847, Certified: unclear what runtime should do with this information vs. Supported. Randy: Certified typically is a narrower range than Supported. Default should be to check the version with respect to the range specified in Supported; optionally, could have a way to instruct the runtime (via a runtime property), if it supports the capability, to check with respect to Certified rather than Supported. If Certified is not present, assume that Supported applies. Will update specification to reflect this.

47. Discussion items:

h. None new

48. Old/new business

a. Will continue reviewing the remaining items next week. Brent will not be available but will make sure that the teleconference bridge is available and we just need someone to take notes during next week’s meeting.

Adjourned 12:00 noon US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 05/07/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from April 16, 2009 (no meetings April 23, April 30).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- No updates

4. v1.1 updates

A. Localized content proposal (Jason)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

49. Minutes from April 16 approved without objection.

50. Administrative:

a. None new.

51. v1.0 status

a. None new.

52. v1.1 items:

a. Jason posted information – not yet a formal proposal – regarding issues with localized content and display text. See the slides posted for details. After some discussion, we achieved consensus among those present on the call that we can document the desired operation in the specification; no schema changes are required. Published examples also should be updated to match the guidance to be incorporated in the specification. Because this is a specification update only and is not deemed controversial, and because it seems likely, based on input from several TC members, that we will not achieve a quorum for next week’s call, we agreed to post an electronic ballot so that this item can be moved forward without delay. Jason will post an updated proposal and Brent will open a ballot referring to that proposal.

53. Discussion items:

i. None new

54. Old/new business

a. None new.

Adjourned 11:37 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 04/16/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from April 2, 2009 (no meeting April 9).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum that was approved has been published at .

4. v1.1 updates

A. Pending specification updates review (see ).

B. Resource resolution model (Jason)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

55. Minutes from April 2 approved without objection.

56. Administrative:

a. None new.

57. v1.0 status

a. The specification errata that we approved last has been published at docs.oasis-. This item is now complete; Brent has updated Jira.

58. v1.1 items:

a. None new

59. Discussion items:

j. Pending specification updates: Merri suggests that we incorporate the approved items into a new version of the draft specification, as some of the items are getting “stale” and should be recorded in the specification. Agreed that we will do this. Brent will update the list of pending specification items and Merri will begin to update the specification. We will review the v1.1 draft at one or more later meetings.

k. Resource resolution discussion: Jason described the current COSMOS implementation, in which they need the context of the SDD to perform resource resolution property. They have been re-factoring the resource resolution model to use the SDD schema directly (for example, parameter values such as installLocation – user might input the value and the runtime checks for existence of the directory, that the directory is writeable, etc.). COSMOS implementation is using the elements of the SDD schema to store such values. Jason is asking if the SDD schema should be extended to directly support such function. Howard asks why the values are stored in the XML tree; could they be cached elsewhere? Jason notes that for more complex cases, storing the value can prevent the need to re-check the value repeatedly, but in addition, values might be inter-dependent and using the SDD schema model offers a structured way to keep the values, and the values could change over time during the deployment as deployment operations are executed. Hence, they have chosen to use the SDD schema as the model for the “working store”. Discussion led to observation that this might be unique to the COSMOS implementation, not generally applicable, and Howard suggests not extending the schema and continuing to use the elements as Jason described. Randy noted that he would prefer not to correlate the schema with the in-memory or persistent data model for the runtime. Discussion led to consensus: no need to extend the SDD schema to accommodate the resolution and storage of these values. Implementations can choose to use the schema model, including the extension points, in the way COSMOS is doing this, but there’s no standardization of this concept that is required.

60. Old/new business

a. Jason’s pick from two weeks ago, for UNC to win the Mens NCAA basketball tournament, turned out to be correct.

Adjourned 11:37 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 04/02/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 12, 2009 (no meetings March 19, March 26).

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum that was approved has been published at .

4. v1.1 updates

A. Expected this week: "ImplementedBy" proposal (Jason)

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

- As required

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

61. Minutes from March 12 approved without objection.

62. Administrative:

a. None new.

63. v1.0 status

a. The specification errata that we approved last has been published at docs.oasis-. This item is now complete; Brent has updated Jira.

64. v1.1 items:

a. None new

65. Discussion items:

l. Jason reviewed his “ImplementedBy” proposal (see the slides posted to the TC Web page). Q: Does this help to achieve a sort of “late binding”? A: Yes, that’s one use; also useful for pre-requisite checking. Randy: helps deal with polymorphism when two resources actually represent the same instance because of constraints in the resource model; enables type-casting and mapping to a particular physical instance. Q: Any reason that the ImplementedBy attribute refers to another HostedResource via idref rather than to a resource type from the profile via qName? A: Originally pursued the qName approach. Randy: difference is that this actually maps to an instance, not just to a resource type (could have multiple resources of same type). After additional clarification discussion, it was agreed that the qName approach will work and is preferable. Consensus to change ImplementedBy attribute from idref to qName. Motion Randy, second Mark to approve the proposal with the change noted (idref ( qName) approved without objection (including Chair vote if required). Jason will update the example to show “multiple resource” case and generate an outline of the specification text; Randy will update and post the schema; Brent will update the Jira issue.

66. Old/new business

a. Jason picks UNC to win the Mens NCAA basketball tournament; Randy picks MSU.

Adjourned 11:37 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 03/12/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 12, 2009.

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum that was approved has been published at .

4. v1.1 updates

A. Expected this week:

- None known

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

Intended use of package descriptors as they relate to listing content for the runtime. For example, the spec says that the content should be content that is deployed but it's not clear whether we should model the runtime components in the PD or implement an internal media descriptor like meta file? (Jason)

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

67. Minutes from March 5 approved without objection.

68. Administrative:

a. None new.

69. v1.0 status

a. The specification errata that we approved last has been published at docs.oasis-. This item is now complete; Brent has updated Jira.

70. v1.1 items:

a. None new

71. Discussion items:

m. Jason raised a question about intended use of package descriptors (PDs) as they relate to listing content for the runtime. That is, should runtime components that are “loaded” during deployment (such as Handlers in the COSMOS implementation) be described in a PD in a manner similar to the software that is being deployed? Randy suggests that such runtime components could be described in their own PD (they have their own identity, including manufacturer, etc., that may be different from the software that is being deployed); that PD is then aggregated with other PDs that describe the actual software that is being deployed. The runtime components can be referenced as pre-requisites for deploying the software. Preference is to describe the runtime components in their own PD rather than intermingle with the PD(s) of the software that is being deployed. Howard suggests that “primary” or “default” runtime components could be provided via some sort of convention (registry, well-known location, etc.), with “special” (perhaps third-party, etc.) runtime components being described in a PD. Jason agrees that this is the type of situation that led to this discussion. Randy notes that the suggested packaging generalizes such that runtime components for multiple runtimes (perhaps COSMOS and several others) could all be supplied in their own PDs. Brent asks if this drives us to CL2; answer is that it does not; we can aggregate PDs in CL1. Consensus is that this approach of providing runtime components in their own PDs seems workable and is a reasonable way to move forward. Jason will share any implementation experience gained using this approach and suggest proposals, if any, to clarify it via examples, specification updates, etc.

72. Old/new business

a. None

Adjourned 11:25 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 03/05/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 26, 2009.

2. Administrative

- None new

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum that was approved last week has been sent to Mary McRae, OASIS TC Administrator, for publication.

4. v1.1 updates

A. Expected this week:

- None known

** See Jira tool for current status of all v1.1 items

B. Discussion

Demonstration of Eclipse COSMOS SDD software implementation (Jason)

** Join the Web conference:

Topic: COSMOS Demos for OASIS SDD TC

Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009

Time: 11:00 am, Eastern Standard Time (GMT -05:00, New York)

Meeting Number: 711 861 509

Meeting Password: sddrocks

Please click the link below to see more information, or to join the meeting.

-------------------------------------------------------

To join the online meeting

-------------------------------------------------------

1. Go to

2. Enter your name and email address.

3. Enter the meeting password: sddrocks

4. Click "Join Now".

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

73. Minutes from February 26 approved without objection.

74. Administrative:

a. None new.

75. v1.0 status

a. The specification errata that we approved last week has been sent to OASIS TC Administrator for publication at docs.oasis-.

76. v1.1 items:

a. None new

77. Discussion items:

Demonstrations of the Eclipse COSMOS SDD Build-Time Generator (BTG) and Runtime code were performed by SAS. In addition to TC members/observers present (recorded on TC Web page), invited guests from member companies attended to view the demonstrations: Acresso: Jiju Jacob; CA: Brad Beck; IBM: Stan Spurgeon, pat Rago, Chris Mildebrandt, Perry Statham, Joe Loewengruber, Ron Doyle, Erich Magee; SAS: Michael King, Josh Hester. Jason provided a presentation about the demo, followed by the BTG and Runtime demonstrations. The presentation will be posted on the TC Web page. Rather than attempt to describe the demo that was shown, these minutes reflect the questions and answers during the demonstrations.

n. Build-Time Generator:

Q: Is the Management Data Repository (MDR) from the CMDBf standard? A: Yes

Q: Is this limited to CL1? A: Current COSMOS implementation is; the demo today shows SAS’s implementation based on COSMOS.

Q: Where is the input for BTG? It comes from a Reader; the demo uses published OASIS SDD examples. Could also read from a database or could develop readers for other sources (e.g., RPM).

Q: What is the use case for the SDD merge demonstrated? A: Have two separate SDDs for individual products/components that we want to consolidated into a single, composite “solution” SDD.

Q: Is there a use case for people not familiar with SDD, just to “wrap” existing build information/artifacts in SDD metadata? A: That’s exactly what the Readers do; they’re the customizable pieces; you can build readers for your “raw” artifacts (for example, have one for RPM artifacts now).

o. Runtime:

Q: Is P2 the update management system of Eclipse? A: Yes – P3 provides installer application for Eclipse; SAS adapted it for this demo purpose.

Q: Is installer separate from runtime? A: Yes, installer provides the UI here; the runtime gnerates the deployment model and lays down the software.

Q: So the installer GUI can be easily replaced with something else? A: Yes, that’s the design intent.

Q: Are the Resolvers implemented in all Java? A: Some Java, some native (JNI). So far have a core set of operating system, file system and directory Resolvers.

Q: Is all this pluggable? A: Yes, one provides a pluggable Handler for the Profile.

Q: We had an issue in the TC, dealing with the standard, about showing progress indication. The method shown in the demo works well because of tight coupling between the handler events and the installer/UI, but that might not always be the case. A: It is up to the Handler to define and publish events and the installer to catch and interpret events, so it does require some common understanding. Follow-up Comment: But when deploying with legacy artifacts, it’s unlikely that we’ll have this ability for such granular progress indication. Response: Agree.

Q: Is there a well-defined Handler interface? A: Yes.

Q: What about the deployment “interview” process on installation (e.g., for verifying disk space, installation directory, port numbers, etc.) – especially for substituting values for variables in the SDD? Can we interrogate the runtime during the interview process/can I write my UI and leverage the runtime capabilities, rather than duplicating all the checks/validations? A: Today, runtime makes a first pass through the SDD to find “default” resolutions. Ultimately, SDD variables need to be surfaced to the UI; need a mechanism to do this; not there yet but requirement is recognized.

Q: Have we thought about this bidirectional interface? A: Information is in the resolution model, but haven’t leveraged all of it and haven’t completed interface definition/design, but it’s on the to-do list. Comment: Need to study this from both implementation and Profile perspectives, especially for interoperability considerations.

78. Old/new business

a. None

Adjourned 12:02 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/26/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 19, 2009.

2. Administrative

- Everyone's Jira account should be active. We will use Jira for issues tracking.

- Notice: For next week, we plan to have demonstrations of COSMOS projects

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum 15-day public review began 02/03/2009 and concluded 02/18/2009.

*** Need vote on final approval of this Errata so that it can be published (must pass by Full Majority vote)

4. v1.1 updates

ACTIVE PROPOSALS (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits). See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" (and/or Jira tool) for details

A. Expected this week:

- None known

** In process, tabled, completed proposals no longer included in agenda (See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" and/or Jira tool for details)

B. Discussion

- Profile updates, if any (Jason)

- Examples updates (Randy) *** Need vote to publish updates

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

79. Minutes from February 19 approved without objection.

80. Administrative:

a. Noted that next week we plan to have demonstrations of some of the Eclipse COSMOS SDD implementation that is under development. Brent to ensure that Chris knows about this, as he had requested this at a previous call. Jason to set up WebEx Web conference for the demos.

81. v1.0 status

a. OASIS 15-day public review process for specification errata began February 3 and concluded February 18 with no comments. According to the OASIS process:

(d) After the public review, confirming the proposed corrections as Approved Errata by a Full Majority Vote.

We confirmed that there were no public review comments for the errata. Merri Jensen made a motion for final approval of the specification errata; Randy George seconded; Mark, Jason, Merri, Jeff, Randy and Howard all voted Yes. 6 yes votes constitutes the Full Majority required to pass (with Brent also indicating that his Chair vote, if required, is Yes); motion approved.

82. v1.1 items:

a. None new

83. Discussion items:

a. Examples update: Randy posted updated examples with changes to the Monolithic and Language Pack examples that mirror the changes made last week to the JRE example (generally, moving elements from Topology to Requirements). Jason also made corresponding updates to the COSMOS example that he had previously distributed with the Profile. Jason suggested including that COSMOS example in our published examples. Updated examples approved without objection, including the new COSMOS example, for OASIS publication as a new version (expository documents). It was also noted that these updates will require a small update in the specification. Randy/Jason will identify the area of the specification to be updated and we will address this in a future meeting.

b. Profile updates: Jason recapped last week’s discussion about using software name/version as “normalized” software identifiers and the best way to specify this identity “mapping” for ResultingResource information. Jason proposes that this need not be done in the Profile and is best done in the explanatory document that accompanies the profile and/or the specification. The distilled version of the practice suggested is: use “generic” resource in cases that don’t map directly to the resource model (e.g., CIM); use the Resource Model (e.g. CIM) resource types for cases where the mapping is direct/straightforward. TC consensus is to proceed according to Jason’s recommendation. Jason will update the explanatory document that accompanies the profile for a future meeting.

84. Old/new business

a. None

Adjourned 11:31 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/19/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 5, 2009 (no meeting February 12).

2. Administrative

- We now have a JIRA account and OASIS TC Admin has set up user accounts for all TC members; you should have received e-mail with account information. Please test this out and let Brent know your results.

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum 15-day public review began 02/03/2009 and concluded 02/18/2009.

- Updated examples approved (Brent sent request to OASIS Staff to re-publish)

4. v1.1 updates

ACTIVE PROPOSALS (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits). See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" (and/or Jira tool) for details

A. Expected this week:

- None known

** In process, tabled, completed proposals no longer included in agenda (See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" and/or Jira tool for details)

B. Discussion

- Profile updates (Jason)

- JRE Example update (Randy)

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

85. Minutes from February 5 approved without objection.

86. Administrative:

a. None new

87. v1.0 status

a. OASIS 15-day public review process for specification errata began February 3 and concluded February 18 with no comments.

88. v1.1 items:

a. None new

89. Discussion items:

a. Profile updates: Jason posted updated documents to the TC Web page. Main items essentially the same as previous revision; updates this time include adding all types from v1.0 Profile that cover our v1.0 published examples and new Artifact and AdditionalContent items per previous discussions. Motion by Jason, second by Randy to approve this version as the new Profile Schema. Discussion: Clarified that the Profile is a non-normative (expository) document. Question from Jason about IPR for such OASIS publications with respect to Eclipse use of SDD Profile schema; Brent explained his understanding that OASIS deliverables are intended to be used openly and freely, including expository documents; that our TC operates under RF on Limited Terms OASIS IPR policy, with no known IPR statements or claims from any party, so use by Eclipse or other parties should be permissible. Brent to follow up with OASIS staff to confirm or correct this understanding. Motion approved without objection; Jason will develop and submit an explanatory document for the Profile (similar to the one for v1.0) to accompany the approved Profile schema.

b. Examples update: Randy posted updated examples with changes to the JRE example that are driven by the new Profile. Several items were “moved” from Topology section to Requirements section; Randy believes this makes for a cleaner distinction and illustrates a best pratice of using Topology for “type-casting” only, and might present a future direction to remove all Variables from Topology (not proposing this now, just an observation). Consensus is that this is the right approach; Randy will determine if other examples need similar updates (Monolithic example does); Jason will make corresponding updates to the example he included with the Profile; Randy will propose specification change to address this best practice and might propose a schema change to enforce it.

90. Old/new business

a. Jason asks about use of ResultingResource information, such as name/version in the ResultingResource and how these relate to name/version of the “same” software elsewhere in the SDD. Randy notes that name/version is used as a normalized software “identifier” of sorts; and the information in ResultingResource is not expected to differ from what is specified for the “same” software elsewhere in the SDD. Randy notes that this “mapping” of identifier information to SDD properties should be specified in the Profile. Jason agrees and will propose an addendum to the new Profile to accomplish this.

Adjourned 11:48 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/05/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from January 15, 2009 (no meetings January 22 or January 29).

2. Administrative

- We now have a JIRA account and OASIS TC Admin has set up user accounts for all TC members; you should have received e-mail with account information. Please test this out and let Brent know your results.

- Determine whether or not to meet next week (Brent will not be available)

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum to update pointers to schema files: TC approved Oct. 30; Brent sent errata package to OASIS Staff 12/01/2008; 15-day public review began 02/03/2009 and concludes 02/18/2009.

- Updated examples approved (Brent sent request to OASIS Staff to re-publish)

4. v1.1 updates

ACTIVE PROPOSALS (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits). See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" (and/or Jira tool) for details

A. Expected this week:

- None known

** In process, tabled, completed proposals no longer included in agenda (See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" and/or Jira tool for details)

B. Discussion

- Profile updates (Jason)

- COSMOS update (Jason)

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

91. Minutes from January 15 approved without objection.

92. Administrative:

a. Jira accounts set up – several on the TC have successfully logged in. Request that remaining members test their accounts – if you do not have your account information, contact Brent. We will migrate to using the Jira tool for our item/issue tracking starting now.

b. Plan to cancel next week’s meeting (both Randy and Brent will be out), unless items are raised. Jason expects to have a Profile proposal the following week.

93. v1.0 status remains as noted in agenda

a. Brent has asked OASIS staff to publish our updated examples (with correct URLs) that were approved previously.

b. We approved the specification erratum to update pointers to the schema files in the specification; the OASIS 15-day public review process began February 3 and will conclude February 18.

94. v1.1 items:

a. None new

95. Discussion items:

a. Profile updates: Jason posted updated documents to the TC Web page. Added a “hosts” relationship for each resource. Randy: past experience indicates that some software could have multiple roles – e.g., a database server or an application server can themselves be applications, but we might need to know their specific type of application. Need to explore this relationship further to ensure we cover all the bases in this area. PropertyProvider element has been added with “affinity” attribute (addresses previously identified issue about “intertwined” properties – e.g., OSType and OSVersion – by specifying that there is some connection between/among properties) and “handler” attribute (URI reference to class/jar/executable/etc. that handles this particular resource). Randy: isn’t affinity inherent? Jason: sort of, with semantic understanding of the properties, but nothing available that informs the runtime about ordering of property processing. Affinity is optional and enables “good SDD authors” to specify affinity that implies ordering of processing. This direction is that the SDD schema will not specify this information; it will be in the Profile; after some discussion, it seems we have general consensus that this (Profile, not schema) is the preferred method. Remaining open items for the profile include the resource handler coupling and what can be defined in AdditionalContent (what types the runtime can handle). These will be added to the proposal that will be brought forward in the future (target next meeting, in 2 weeks). Randy: Do we need to add any additional guidance/stronger statements to the specification regarding use of Name property? Jason: Specification is pretty clear now; the JRE example kind of takes us in the wrong direction. Resolved that we will examine and update this example and any others that might have the same issue (Randy) and we’ll review changes at next meeting in two weeks.

b. COSMOS update: Build-time generator for CL1 complete and available. Runtime code is continuing development – converted from Tuscany to JAXB implementation; a change resolver is now operational. v1.1 iteration 2 is now in test; iteration 3 is the milestone driver and is expected to be available April 3; goal is to have basic runtime framework in place that can install COSMOS itself. Overall v1.1 release target is June.

96. Old/new business

a. Jason notes that there are 3 COSMOS projects (Build-Time Generator, basically done); Runtime (underway); and SDD editor (not getting much attention now; Acresso or others might be interested in this). Jason encourages any interested parties to become involved, especially in the SDD editor project.

Adjourned 11:56 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 01/15/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from January 8, 2009

2. Administrative

- We now have a JIRA account. Brent has move operational items onto this new system, but OASIS TC Admin needs to set up user accounts for all TC members before we can use this system.

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum to update pointers to schema files: TC approved Oct. 30; Brent sent errata package to OASIS Staff 12/01/2008 for the required 15-day public review.

- Updated examples approved (Brent sent request to OASIS Staff to re-publish)

4. v1.1 updates

ACTIVE PROPOSALS (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits). See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" (and/or Jira tool) for details

A. Expected this week:

- None known

** In process, tabled, completed proposals no longer included in agenda (See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" and/or Jira tool for details)

B. Discussion

- General discussion of going-forward plan (v1.1 with CL1 updates, migration to new Profiles, v1.2 with CL2 updates, any F2F meetings, etc.)

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

97. Minutes from January 8 approved without objection.

98. Administrative:

a. Mary McRae from OASIS just set up a JIRA account for us. Brent has entered the items/issues currently being tracked in the spreadsheet (including completed items). Mary is setting up accounts for all TC members; you should receive e-mail notification from OASIS once everything is set up.

99. v1.0 status remains as noted in agenda

a. Brent has asked OASIS staff to publish our updated examples (with correct URLs) that were approved previously.

b. We approved the specification erratum to update pointers to the schema files in the specification; Brent has transcribed this information into the OASIS document template so that this can go through the OASIS 15-day public review process. Mary McRae from OASIS is initiating this public review.

100. v1.1 items:

a. Confirmed last week’s direction: We resolved that we will focus on CL1 for the v1.1 specification, with proposals primarily generated from implementation (notably COSMOS) experience (although anyone may make any proposal at any time, as always), with target to issue v1.1 specification in the summer; and then produce another version (probably v1.2) with any CL2 updates (many of the current items in the spreadsheet are CL2) – v1.2 not scheduled at this time.

b. We also agreed that we will issue the new Profile(s) once the COSMOS profile implementation completes (likely to be a little bit before a v1.1 specification).

c. Merri Jensen agreed to act as specification editor for v1.1; Brent will assist. Most specification updates are relatively minor and have already been developed within the approved proposals. Thanks Merri!

d. Face-to-face meeting: none planned at this time; if v1.1 updates merit an in-person discussion, we will consider a meeting at that time.

101. Old/new business

a. Jason brought up an issue discovered during COSMOS implementation: sometimes an SDD specifies multiple properties per resource, where some properties are “dependent” on others. For example, OSType and Version might both be specified, but OSType must be resolved first, because the OSType determines how to obtain the version (a process that varies across operating systems). Schema doesn’t indicate these dependencies; question is, should we do anything in the specification/schema to address this item? Howard: wouldn’t an implementation plug-in solve this? Jason: Yes, that’s one way to solve, by leaving this item to the implementations. Randy: Topology doesn’t provide the necessary information. Could use dependency, making it richer, for CL2 cases. In CL1, multiple properties on a resource are logically ANDed together; implementations plug-in should handle any ordering within a single resource. Can’t think of a particular example with dependent properties across resources. After discussion, consensus is that implementation handles ordering of property resolution; no change in specification schema. As we go forward, can consider author declaration of known dependencies and consider specification/schema/Profile/Primer/Best Practices updates if justifying use cases arise.

Adjourned 11:53 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 01/08/2009 Meeting

Agenda:

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from November 20, 2008

2. Administrative

- We now have a JIRA account. Brent will proceed to move operational items onto this new system

3. v1.0 status

- Specification erratum to update pointers to schema files: TC approved Oct. 30; Brent sent errata package to OASIS Staff 12/01/2008 for the required 15-day public review.

- Updated examples approved (Brent sent request to OASIS Staff to re-publish)

4. v1.1 updates

ACTIVE PROPOSALS (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits). See spreadsheet "v1.1 Candidate Items" for details

** Expected this week:

- None known (will review list of pending items during the meeting)

** In process or tabled (to resume discussion later):

- D2 Self-Documenting Schema (Howard): proposal direction was approved; seeking volunteers to develop final proposal

- S3 Interoperability (Julia): Tabled until Julia returns; may want to split this into separate items addressing various aspects of interoperability

COMPLETED PROPOSALS (for reference):

- S0 Charter update (Brent): Complete/published

- N18 Use OASIS Standard for name/address (Howard): Initial outline/sketch to determine direction was presented; TC consensus is not to pursue further.

- N14 Updated/Final Pattern proposal (Randy): approved; specification/schema updates pending

- N1a Root Install (Randy & Jason): approved; specification/schema updates pending

- N12: Additional Variable Types (Lazar/Chris): approved; specification/schema updates pending

- D8: Specification erratum for latest schema files (Brent) Approved; need to generate documentation in OASIS template format.

- N9/N10: Version representation/Revisit use of Profiles (Jason): Proposal as amended after discussion was approved; this gives us a new "foundation" for profiles.

C. Discussion

5. Old/new business

- Brent has action item to schedule discussion with OVF Working Group (original target end October; new target 2Q 2009)

- Brent has action item to schedule discussion with OASIS SCA-Assembly TC (request sent to SCA-Assembly co-chairs 08/21; no reply; sent reminder 09/24; no reply)

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

We have a quorum.

102. Minutes from November 20 approved without objection.

103. Administrative:

a. Mary McRae from OASIS just set up a JIRA account for us. Brent will enter the items/issues currently being tracked in the spreadsheet, and the pending specification items, into Jira and we’ll use this tool until further notice. Brent will send out access information to the TC once everything is set up.

104. v1.0 status remains as noted in agenda

a. Brent has asked OASIS staff to publish our updated examples (with correct URLs) that were approved previously.

b. We approved the specification erratum to update pointers to the schema files in the specification; Brent has transcribed this information into the OASIS document template so that this can go through the OASIS 15-day public review and approval process. Mary McRae from OASIS advises that this public review should commence this week.

105. v1.1 items:

a. No new items this week; we discussed the existing high-priority items in the spreadsheet, and Jason noted that as the COSMOS iterations proceed, items that might require proposals for the SDD standard are likely to arise (although the specific line items aren’t yet generated). After examining the high-priority items in the spreadsheet, it became apparent that we generally will be better off thinking about specification improvements in the context of implementation experience. We did not identify any items that anyone believes need immediate proposals, or that anyone wants to immediately generate proposals for. We also noted that the COSMOS implementation focuses on CL1, and the items we have already approved for v1.1 also are restricted to CL1. Hence, we resolved that we will focus on CL1 for the v1.1 specification, with proposals primarily generated from implementation (notably COSMOS) experience (although anyone may make any proposal at any time, as always); and then produce another version (probably v1.2) with any CL2 updates (many of the current items in the spreadsheet are CL2).

106. Old/new business

a. Joint discussion with SCA-Assembly TC (whose charter notes that they will consider leveraging SDD): Brent has contacted the SCA-Assembly TC co-chairs requesting a meeting with that TC to review/provide education on SDD. No response to that request yet. Brent followed up with another query on 09/24; no response to that yet, either.

b. Joint discussion with OVF working group: Brent will make contact with OVF representatives in 1Q 2009, based on information received from that group as to when they reach an appropriate milestone that would present an opportunity for such a discussion..

Adjourned 11:20 US eastern time.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download