Description
At the October 25th, 2011 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee, the members discussed the following topics:
1. TOPIC: Are we ready to proceed with the motion at the upcoming EM TC meeting to recommend approval of the DE Working Draft 05 as a committee specification draft? (Answer: Yes, some cleanup changes were done to the draft over the last week, but none were substantive.)
2. TOPIC: When do we get the URLs for the new specifications (e.g. Common Types and GML Simple Features Profile) and when do we update our specification which has placeholders for these URLs? (Answer: OASIS staff will create the URLs as part of their normal process and we update the URLs after the public review period, because we can't change the review document once it's approved for review.)
3. TOPIC: Can we proceed to put the normative DE Working Draft 05 in a zip file and do we pull out the schema from Appendix A and B in separate files and what else should go in the zip file? (Answer: Consensus based on Rex and Werner's experience was that we create one zip file and include the .odt file and the schema file(s).)
4. TOPIC: What is the proper wording for the EM TC motion to approve the DE Working Draft 05 as a Committee Specification Draft? (Answer: The wording of the motion that we need to reference when we request OASIS staff to process the Committee Specification Draft is: “Jeff moved to approve EDXL Distribution Element 2.0 Working Draft 05 (located at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-if/download.php/44068/EDXL-DE-v2.0-wd05.odt) as Committee Specification Draft as a CSD01. Rex seconded. Any discussion. All approved. Now let's get a motion to advance this to a public review. I move that EDXL Distribution Element 2.0 Committee Specification Draft CSD01 be approved to advance to public review document PR01 for a 45 day review. Rex seconded. All approved. “)
5. TOPIC: Should we update the latest DE Working Draft 05 in the next few minutes before the EM TC meeting in order to fix the incorrect reference to Working Draft “04” in the body? (Answer: Yes, the meeting was adjourned early to allow time to make this important typo fix as well as a couple other non-substantive cleanup fixes. )
