Document:
DRAFT-06-21-11-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.doc

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

Details

Submitted By Jeff Waters on 2011-06-21 8:51 pm 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

232

Download Agreement

None at this time.

Description

This document contains the minutes for the Infrastructure Framework Subcommittee meeting of June 21st, 2011. At this meeting, the members discussed the following topics:

1. TOPIC: What is the status of the common components and should we be waiting for those before proceeding with DE documentation? (Answer: OASIS staff should have common types and CIQ profile approved within a week or two, and the EM TC still needs to submit the GML Micro when a few technical details are resolved hopefully this week. We can proceed with our DE draft, but problems can result if we proceed too far without the official versions. )

2. TOPIC: When and how much testing should be done on our specs? (Answer: Historically, the amount and extent of testing depends on the resources of the members in a given committee and OASIS does not formally take on the testing role; however, the consensus is that testing should be recommended and defined in a process to include recruiting testers through the Adoption TC beginning as early as a working draft and schema is available. Early testing will focus on whether key features have been adequately implemented and later testing on robustness and scalability. )

3. TOPIC: Do we have a “smart” routing example that shows the ability to use the DE to ensure all appropriate people receive messages based on their roles? (Answer: Yes, the example utilizes CAMEL, HERMIT and OWL to show how an externally managed ontology can enable appropriate recipients to be inferred from a recipientRole value specified in the DE. The sample small ontology shows that recipients whose roles are semantically similar but defined differently, for example as TSO Events versus OASIS Incidents, can all receive the appropriate messages because the ontology defines which classes and roles are equivalent.)