Document:
DRAFT-04-03-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee-1.odt

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

Details

Submitted By Jeff Waters on 2012-04-10 7:41 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

169

Download Agreement

None at this time.

Description

At the April 3rd, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee, the members began reviewing proposed changes to the DE 2.0 designed to implement the resolutions addressing the public comments, including the following topics:

1. TOPIC EMFW-21 Changes Made: Text Added to SenderRole and RecipientRole data dictionary elements to suggest where example roles can be found; also modified schema and examples to enable “Classified” and “Unclassified” as defaults for confidentiality. Members will review this week, approve at our next meeting, and close out this issue, subject to any specified changes.

2. TOPIC EMFW-20 NO Changes Required: The resolution was that no special handling of comments is appropriate. Members will review this week, approve at our next meeting, and close out this issue, subject to any specified changes.

3. TOPIC EMFW-19 NO Changes Required: The resolution was that no special enforcement of element ordering is appropriate beyond what is already enforced by XML Schema. Members will review this week, approve at our next meeting, and close out this issue, subject to any specified changes.

4. TOPIC EMFW-18 StatusKindDefault and StatusKindValueList were added to the data dictionary and a new section 1.3.4 “Value Lists and Defaults” was added to the .odt version of the specification to provide a better explanation upfront. Members will review these changes this week, approve at our next meeting, and close out this issue, subject to any specified changes.

5. TOPIC: How should the elements in the data dictionary be ordered? (Answer: Jeff suggested ordering alphabetically; however Rex noted that in othe specifications the elements are grouped into sections and others commented that ordering by the order in the XML Schema may be a better order. Members will consider this ordering issue and recommend an ordering approach at the next meeting.)

References:

(1) JIRA DE 2.0 Issues List: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=10084
(2) Jeff's recent uploaded zip for Working Draft 06 containing mods to specification and schema: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-if/download.php/45604/edxl-de-v2.0-csprd01-fixed.zip