Minutes
Agenda Bashing
Resolution: agenda accepted
JeffM moved, Kand seconded to approve minutes
Resolution: minutes of last meeting approved without objection
JIRA
MikeE:
JIRA use approved by OASIS staff, and JIRA is now live
... issues editor rights have been set; everyone now has read access
... JIRA is being tuned to conform to the process we have accepted
Proposal- Since we have been told to not discusss an issue until it has an issue number assigned, could the isue editors please
respond with an email once it has been entered into JIRA?
All new issues shall be sent to th mailing list
Proposal- that the issue "user" field be picked up from whoever submitted the initial issue
Scott moved and JeffM seconded that the two proposals above be accepted
Resolution: two proposals above accepted without objection
JeffM:
What does the url field mean in the above page?
Action: MikeE to fix the above page
<anish>
can we get the URL of the email that raised the issue in JIRA as well?
JeffM:
Who decides what components are?
MikeE:
The TC will decide
... lets have a discussion on the email list about what a sensible breakdown of components might be for Assembly
Version Nr. for SCA-Assembly spec
Chapman:
last week the stering ctte considered
... and recommended that the current version be 1.1
... and that further numbers consider issues such as compatibility
TRutt:
If we have to make a change to all of the namespaces ould that change the revision Nr?
MikeE:
I think that would be rather a cosmetic change
JeffM:
namespace changes do break implementations, I think that it should be a judgement call taking into consideration if the change
is a breaking change
... but a change solely to move to an OASIS namespace probably does not count.
By OASIS rules, we must change the namespaces to OASIS namespaces.
MikeE:
As long as the xsds' don't change it is rather minor
Sanjay moves to adopt version 1.1 as proposed by the steering cttee seconded by DBooz
Resolution: TC adopts the recommendation of the steeering ctte and will consider the spec under process to be version 1.1
RFC2119
<Sanjay>
how many times can one have de javu?
<Martin C>
The Steering Committee (SC) recommends to each SCA Technical Committee to use the RFC 2119 keywords along with the following
restrictions in their specifications:
a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for example, RFC 2119 keywords MUST be capitalized)
b) Use of lower-case 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. When the use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the
implications wrt conformance, a suitable synonym will be found.
c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC should
not use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC should use 'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL
NOT' through out the spec.
Martin:
The link abov impose some restrictions wrt use of RFC2119 ketywords proposed
Martin:
In order to keep things simple, the BPEL TC adopted the above three restrictions as recommended by the steering ctee.
Sanjay moves to adopt the steering cttee recommendation seconded by JeffM
Resolution: Restriction of RFC2119 keywords as recommended by the steering cttee approved without onjection
New Issues
Issue Nr 3 Normative nature of interface Java specification
TomR:
Introduces his issue
<Sanjay>
do we really need motions for accepting issues?
<Khanderao Kand>
khanderao seconding
Scott moves and Khandarao seconds to accept new issue
Resolution: New Issue Nr 3 opened without objection
Issue Nr. 1 isBinding SCA always present?
Sanjay:
Introduces his new issue
Resolution: Issue Nr. 1 opened without objection
New Issue use of UML 2.0
JeffE:
Introduces his issue
... that proposes the use of an industry standard visual modeling language
<Sanjay>
JeffE, what is so cartoon-like about the current diagrams?
Resolution: Issue Nr. 2 opened without objections (however there were some reservations voiced)
MikeE:
Shall we assign a responsible party when we open an issue?
<anish>
Scott, if you record the public URL of the email that raised the issue that would capture the issue raiser's name
<tomRutt>
OMG will have a revised submission on UML Profile and Metamodel for Services RFP, which will have a mapping onto SCA
Anish:
if we were to record the public url of the new issue email, that would record the originator
<Scott Vorthmann>
I'm always confused with Eric
Martin:
New issue email -> issues editor assigns an issue number and posts to the list all before the issue is accepted
Khanderao:
then it is possible that we might discuss an issue even though it might not be accepted.
AOB?
Resolution: adjourned
