Description
Here are the minutes from the October 5th, 2010 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee. The members are engaged in reviewing and approving edits to a draft DE 2.0 specification. At this meeting, the following issues were discussed and edits considered:
ITEM (25) Other – Can we approve this edit to add “Other” to the table of contents? (Answer:-- Not quite yet, because we’ll need to generate the table of contents after all edits are done. So we’ll leave it color-coded grey for now and mark it green once we’ve completed the edits and generated the table of contents and confirmed it’s there. ) ITEM (16) Circle Example – The circle example needs to be fixed, everyone agree? (Answer:-- Yes, previously Jeff lumped this with the geo-oasis:Where topics, but Hans correctly noted that we can fix this on our own. Jeff will make the fix and we'll approve next time.)
ITEM (26) Mimetype – Can we approve this edit to limit the size of the string Mimetype by adding the comment “The string length of the identifier must be less than 1024”? (Answer:-- Yes, approved.)
ITEM (27) ContentXml – Can we approve this edit to change XmlContent to ContentXML? (Answer:-- Yes, approved; however, the consensus is also to undo the change from the “OtherContent” element and change it back to “ContentNonXml”.)
ITEM (28) Language – Can we agree on an edit to allow a way to specify a language for each ContentObject? (Answer:-- Yes, consensus is to add a Language element to the ContentObject. Jeff will make this change.)
ITEM (29) and (30) EmbeddedXMLContent – Can we approve edit to say “MAY use only one per content object”, “CONDITIONAL, REQUIRED if parent element ContentXML is present”, and add to comments “This element MUST be present if parent element, ContentXML, is present”? (Answer:-- Yes, these edits are approved.)
ITEM (31) ContentObject – Can we suggest an edit to allow other additional areas to be specified beyond “targetArea”, such as “sourceArea”? (Answer:-- Consensus is to use a ValueListURI to provide flexibility to specify an area with a keyword denoting the role for that area, such as “target” or “source”. Hans will make this edit for approval at our next meeting.)
ITEM (32) Language – This issue was a duplicate of similar language issues already raised, so can we agree that no edit is required and this issue is closed? (Answer:-- Yes, no edit needed, approved.)
ITEM (33) Best Practice for Handling Lists – Should we put wrapper elements around “lists” of items? (Answer:-- Consensus is no. This issue was unresolved at the face-2-face. The suggestion was that it is a best practice to put wrapper elements around lists of zero to unbounded sequences of xml elements, to help handle parsing in cases where there are no items. Although this may be a best practice in theory, it is not usually followed and it adds many elements simply for the purpose of providing “structure”, one opening and closing element for each element that is specified as a sequence of zero to unbounded. )
ITEM (20) Revisited -- Linking Content Objects – Do we have a recommendation for a way to link content objects? (Answer:-- At our last meeting, Dave said he would come up with a recommendation and Jeff suggested potentially using XLink. At this meeting, Dave wasn’t present, so we’ll postpone this issue; however, Jeff did provide some additional background on XLink)
