Document:
DRAFT-09-07-10-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.doc

Draft (A preliminary unapproved sketch, outline, or version.)

Details

Submitted By Jeff Waters on 2010-09-14 8:51 am UTC

Publication Type

None at this time.

Group / Folder

EM Infrastructure Framework SC / Resources

Modified by

Not modified.

Copy

This document is not a copy.

Technical Contact

None at this time.

Download Count

183

Download Agreement

None at this time.

Description

At today’s meeting, the group reviewed and discussed the following edits as specified by item number (column A) in the DE Issues spreadsheet, version 5 :

Items Covered from Issues List:

1.ITEM (4) Revisited: Clarifying default namespaces -- Should all payload XML be validatable and what should be guidance for where to put needed namespaces? (Answer:-- Consensus remains that the payload XML should be well-formed xml but the payload should not be required to be validatable. In other words, snippets of xml are ok. For namespaces, its good to have them declared at top of payload so that they are there when payload is separated. We should do some examples and testing with whatever best practices we recommend.

2.TOPIC: Need for Geo-Oasis:Where – Who can begin work on taking old version and editing as needed? (Answer:-- Hans will consider this and we’ll all assist him, if he chooses, as needed. )

3.ITEM (8) DistributionType – Is the edit sufficient which changes the DistributionType to a ValueListURI? (Answer:-- Yes, but the discussion centered around how and where to specify default values. Consensus was that there should be a default list and a default value from the list. The sensor values in the current default list should be in their own separate list. There should be a default URN registered with IANA in the schema, with local lookup, so that the default URL is not hammered unduly. OASIS should maintain the default URL. )

4.ITEM (9) CombinedConfidentiality – Is the edit sufficient which says “CONDITIONAL, MUST be present when confidentiality is used in a content object” and then changes the type to a ValueListURI? (Answer:-- Yes, after some discussion, the recommended consensus opinion was that this change was approved but no default values should be specified. The discussion centered around whether default values should be specified and whether perhaps we should just leave this combinedConfidentiality as is. The recommendation was that the issues and resolutions were decided at face-2-face and we shouldn't undo those changes unless there is a really good reason.)