====== Differences ====== This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
15_april_2010 [2010/04/15 16:09] (current) admin created |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | [[start|Back to Start]] | | ||
+ | [[Teleconference Notes|Back to Teleconference Notes]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 15 April 2010 ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Quick notes from the 15th April teleconference: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **On the call**: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Pete Rivett | ||
+ | * Jishnu Mukerji | ||
+ | * Jim Rice | ||
+ | * Bob Daniel | ||
+ | * Manfred Koethe | ||
+ | * Larry Johnson | ||
+ | * Cory Casanave | ||
+ | * Sridhar Iyengar | ||
+ | * J D Baker | ||
+ | * Tom Rutt | ||
+ | * Doug Tolbert | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu chairs | ||
+ | Andrew takes notes | ||
+ | |||
+ | Three things to do (from emailed strawman agenda) | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Agree on Terms of Reference of the group. This could include but no be | ||
+ | limited to consideration of: | ||
+ | a. Develop guidelines for machine readable files that must accompany | ||
+ | submissions | ||
+ | b. Minimal set without which submissions and F/RTF reports will not be | ||
+ | considered complete enough for consideration at the meeting. | ||
+ | c. Assistance that can /needs to be provided in the way of tooling and best | ||
+ | practices | ||
+ | d. Any additional items | ||
+ | e. Resulting changes in SMSC processes for acceptance of documents and | ||
+ | publishing of documents. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. Decide on timeline and deadline for reporting results to the AB with | ||
+ | specific proposals for adoption as AB Policy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. Assuming that atleast the first 3 items in (1) are included in the ToR | ||
+ | as described above. Discuss and scope out each items and appoint one or | ||
+ | more individuals to lead specific aspects. Make as much progress as | ||
+ | possible on the call and create action items to be completed by the | ||
+ | followup call to drive further activity in those calls. | ||
+ | |||
+ | What to add? Bob adds - how to bring existing spec into scope of new | ||
+ | submission? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sridhar - For instance, when you re-used BMM concepts? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Bob - We did 2 things - Subtyping in MPG from BMM, and some new associations. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Larry - Would like guidelines for reusing specifications and list of common | ||
+ | ways of reusing. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - Need to have discussion on policy. MPG created new XSD for existing | ||
+ | BMM spec using proprietary algorithms. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - Let's add this to list - Is a spec designed to be reused? If so, | ||
+ | policy on what reuse is allowed, what not allowed? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sridhar - guidelines. 2 ways models created. ???, and part of mof models. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - In the general case, the question is about submission of new PSMs | ||
+ | for existing PIMs - e.g. MPG PSM for BMM PIM. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cory - Relationship between XMI, XSD, RDF. In BMM we have XSDs, XMI for | ||
+ | same specifications. Multiple representations of same model, how | ||
+ | correlated, namespaces, repositories, etc? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - What is governance of resulting PSM? By group that created it, or | ||
+ | PIM owners (e.g. BMM)? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jisnhu - Not sure we can take a fixed position on this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - Then decision should be discussed and documented on per-submission | ||
+ | basis. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sridhar - If RTF for original spec exists, presumably have to refer to them. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - CORBA integration was a mess. No governance process. General issue | ||
+ | - managing lifecycle of specifications. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - It's only recently that we're explicitly started documenting | ||
+ | dependencies. We should require dependency info in submission. This is | ||
+ | fifth item on the list - governance of evolution of specifications. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Bob - There are 2 parts; the conceptual, and nuts and bolts. Lots of nuts | ||
+ | and bolts issues on tooling. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - Let's talk timelines and availability. Can we target Cambridge MA | ||
+ | September meeting, with face-to-face discussions at the MN meeting and con | ||
+ | calls beforehand. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - wants to do it quicker. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - OK, we'll aim to complete in June, fall back to September if we | ||
+ | don't make it. We need leads on each of 5 items. I'll take lead on SMSC | ||
+ | process (item 1e). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cory - will lead on item 1a. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Larry - Can review. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jisnhu - Can pete lead on the new item? He's already proposed draft policy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - was going to volunteer on item 1a. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - OK, so you work with Cory. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sridhar - will lead on new item instead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - takes 1b. | ||
+ | |||
+ | New item is: "When multiple specs are related to each other and have | ||
+ | dependencies, how would their evolution be governed?" | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sridhar leads on this new item. | ||
+ | |||
+ | JD leads on item 1c. Bob supports. | ||
+ | |||
+ | SMSC wiki can be used to document, and SMSC mailing list for discussion. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pete - guidelines. If (say) RFP asks for UML model, what files should be | ||
+ | submitted? List acceptable files for each artefact. item 1c lists how files | ||
+ | are produced (tooling). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jishnu - on next call, focus on item 1a. On call after that, spend mostly | ||
+ | on item 1c, which flows from that. I'll keep track of 1b & 1e. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sridhar's item - more weighty in terms of scope and impact. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Schedule - weekly calls, starting on Thr 29th April at 6pm BST (1pm EDT). | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Next Call Info: ** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Date/Time: Thursday 29th April 2010 18:00 BST, 13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT | ||
+ | |||
+ | Number: +1 605 475 4850 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Access code: 422074# | ||
+ | |||
+ | In case of problems getting onto the call, please call Andrew on +44 7710 469624. | ||
+ | |||