Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 04/17/2008 Meeting
AGENDA Agenda: 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from April 10 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)
3. Standardization and document/publication status A. Specification: initial submission complet for publication and Committee Specification vote BUT the approved version needs to be updated to "cd04" status; in work B. Primer: submitted for publication (cross-references will need to be updated after specification reaches CS status) C. Starter Profile Material: submitted for publication (cross- references will need to be updated after specification reaches CS status) D. Examples: submitted for publication (cross-references will need to be updated after specification reaches CS status)
4. Remaining work - Version 1.1: Develop action plan to address the items that were prioritized last week.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We do not have a quorum at the start of the meeting. We achieve quorum at 10 after.
1. Minutes from 4/10/2008.
2. Brent has no new news on future participation of our former Macrovision reps.
3. Brent submitted the specification to the OASIS staff last week – whereupon we were told that the name and status of the document needed to be CD04 (Committee Draft 04) not PR1-R01 (Public Review 1 – revision 1). Brent made all the changes and resubmitted. The official TC vote on the standard will begin soon. Vote will be run by the OASIS staff. 2/3 of voting members must vote YES for this vote to pass. An Abstain vote reduces the total number against which the 2/3 majority is calculated.
4. The expository documents have been sent to Mary McRae to publish on docs.oasis-open.org and should appear there very soon.
5. 1.1 issues – it is time to assign owners to issues. We are not making commitments to dates yet. An updated version of the 1.1 issues list that includes the priorities we assigned last week has been posted by Brent. A new version of the document that includes assignments will be posted after this meeting by Brent. Only items that someone volunteered for will have owners. We made it through the medium and high priority items and most have owners assigned. We agreed to add a new worksheet to our issues spreadsheet as a place to collect issues that come from the COSMOS SDD runtime work and other implementation efforts. We also moved the three profile-related items over to that worksheet.
6. We voted to take a break from our weekly meetings to allow time to prepare proposals and since several people will be out during the next month. Our next meeting will be June 5th. Jason, Julia and Randy all plan to have proposals ready to discuss at that time. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 04/10/2008 Meeting
AGENDA Agenda: 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from April 3 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)
3. Standardization and document/publication status A. Specification: "Housekeeping" updates complete; ready to submit for publication and Committee Specification vote B. Primer: Minor updates for publication ("housekeeping" + example updates to match new examples) complete; ready to submit for publication C. Starter Profile Material: Minor updates for publication (RDDL, "housekeeping") complete; ready to submit for publication D. Examples: minor updates for publication (to match starter profile updates) complete; ready to submit for publication
4. Remaining work - Version 1.1: Continue discussion of items to address and prioritize those items.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We have a quorum.
7. Minutes for 4/03/2008 are approved as posted without comment or objection.
8. Administrative: Brent has some new information about how the Macrovision changes have affected Quenio’s and Robert’s participation. What he has learned is that Macrovision is the OASIS member, but that Quenio and Robert are now employees of Acresso. They are pursuing membership and we hope to welcome them back sometime soon.
9. Standardization and document/publication status: Document updates, link updates, references, etc. have been made in the specification. Brent has posted these updates. Housekeeping changes are the only changes in the specification. Brent will submit the specification to OASIS today. The primer and profile docs housekeeping changes are almost completed. When Brent receives them, they will also be posted and submitted to OASIS.
10. Remaining work – 1.1 Issues Prioritization – Brent has posted a spreadsheet Brent will update the spreadsheet as we discuss the items so the main results of todays discussion can be seen by looking at the update to the issues spreadsheet that Brent will post after the meeting. Only issues will be recorded in the minutes. Our first pass approach will be to give each item the highest priority assigned to it by any member company. High priority means we MUST have a disposition of the item before shipping 1.1; Medium priority means we should have a disposition; Low priority means we’ll address it if we get to it. We made it through all items in the spreadsheet without the need to record any issues. TC MEMBERS: Please take a look at the new issue priorities and identify the proposals you are prepared to create or discussions you would like to lead. We will assign owners to issues next week. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 04/03/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 27 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Review ballot results (2)
3. Standardization and document/publication status A. Primer: Need minor updates for publication ("housekeeping" + example updates to match new examples). B. Starter Profile Material: Approval ballot passed; working on updates for publication (RDDL, "housekeeping") C. Examples: minor updates made for publication (to match starter profile updates).
4. Remaining work - Version 1.1: Initiate discussion of items to address and prioritize those items. Brent will post an updated list of candidate items with mapping of items to supporting use cases.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We have a quorum.
11. Minutes for 3/27/2008 are approved as posted without comment or objection.
12. Administrative: a. The examples and profile ballots passed with a couple of minor comments. This means all our expository documents are ready to be published – after minor updates of links. Merri has the pen for those updates. b. Dell has decided to discontinue their association with OASIS so Tom Studwell and John Zhang are no longer members of the committee. We will miss their valuable contributions. c. The Macrovision transition has completed. Brent will be finding out if there will be continued participation from Quenio and Robert. (We miss them.)
13. We briefly review the 1.1 Issues Spread sheet was posted by Brent. a. Howard notes that A2 is not alignment with another standard even though it is in the alignment section, and that it should be simple to accomplish. Brent notes that it is still a sort of alignment so we leave it in the alignment section. b. The virtualization support item is moved to the alignment section as OVF alignment. c. Julia notes 3 schema issue items to add: i. The SDD author may know a lot more about what is needed to validate a parameter than can be communicated currently in the SDD. Let’s consider additional parameter metadata and/or parameter types. ii. Default strings may need to be non-English. iii. Valid values and default values for parameters may vary by locale. d. There are also issues relative to the profile – including the issue of making it normative. Julia noted 3 profile items to add to the profile bucket. More information on these will be provided later. Brent will create a profile bucket in the spread sheet. e. One of the issues is the “media” descriptor. Julia notes that she has been looking at the SML-IF standard and thinks we may get what we need without too much work by extending SML-IF.
14. What is our 1.1 timing? We will start work on 1.1. now but wait a while to actually branch a 1.1 schema and spec. Ideally this will happen after 1.0 standardization is complete so that we won’t have two active branches. When will we finish? Randy suggests, and Jason concurs, that a significant driver of our end date should be the needs of the open source SDD runtime work (COSMOS).
15. 1.1 Prioritization – ALL TC MEMBERS – please look at the 1.1 issues list over the next week and be prepared to discuss your priorities next week. Please identify each issue as high, medium or low priority. After prioritization, we can get started working on proposals.
16. TC MEMBERS – do you know of other companies that would like to join this work? This is a good time to add contributors, so if you know of anyone potentially interested in joining, encourage them to do it now.
17. Meeting timing: Should we go to every other week? Opinions expressed on both sides with the majority being in favor of every other week. Jason proposes a middle ground. Go to every other week right now, and then if we realize that the runtime is going to need 1.1 earlier than it looks like we can be done, then we’ll go back to weekly. Randy proposes that we do as Jason suggests with the modification that we continue with weekly calls until we have the 1.1 issues list prioritized and proposals assigned. So, TC MEMBERS please do your prioritization and think about which proposals you can sign up for. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 03/27/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 20 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)
3. Public Review is now complete! TC vote to initiate approval of Committee Specification for PR02 revision of the specification (ballot performed by OASIS TC Administrator)
4. Remaining work A. Primer: ballot open now for final approval. B. Starter Profile Material: Complete (approval ballot passed); working on publication C. Examples: ballot open now for final approval. D. Conformance Document: Complete (approval ballot passed, content incorporated in specification) E. Version 1.1: Initiate discussion of items to address and prioritize those items. Brent has posted a mapping of known deferred items to supporting use cases.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We have a quorum.
1. Minutes for 3/20/2008 are approved as posted without comment or objection.
2. Administrative: Merri is unable to attend and has requested that her proxy vote be passed to Ed from SAS. OASIS bylaws allow this. No objections are voiced. Brent does state that we would like to limit the use of proxy votes.
3. Public Review – only two comments received. One was a simple bug fix; the second will be part of the 1.1 discussion re: the specification of version formats. Also, conformance information has been added as explanatory information. This is not a substantive change. The TC can vote today to open a ballot to approve this as an OASIS Committee Specification. We do not open the ballot – the OASIS staff runs this ballot. This is a vote of the TC members. This vote requires a special majortiy to pass: 2/3 vote yes and no more than ¼ vote no. This is not the last step in getting to standardization. The next step is a vote by general membership. Each OASIS member company has a designated voting rep. This vote runs for multiple weeks and requires a special majority. After the general membership vote the specification goes to the OASIS steering committee for final ratification. It is at this point that we need three statements of use. Brent requests a roll call vote to petition OASIS to open the Committee Specification ballot on pr01-r01. Motion to petition OASIS to open the Committee …. ballot is made by Chris and seconded by Jason. No further discussion. Howard: Yes John: Yes Randy: Yes Julia: Yes Lazaar: Yes Chris: Yes Robert from SAS: Yes Jason: Yes Ed (for Merri): Yes
Vote passes unamiously. Brent will get the final housekeeping done on the spec – producing pdf, etc. and then pass this to Merri.
4. Primer – Please vote if you have not already. This requires a full majority. If not enough people vote, it won’t pass.
5. Starter Profile – Previously approved. Still waiting for publication. Decided we need rdl documents and we are awaiting the cr
6. Examples – Please vote if you have not already. cim: discussion…
7. Conformance Document – approved and incorporated in the specification.
8. SDD Version 1.1 – Brent posted a spread sheet called “Deferred Items” under Reference Material.
9. Old/New business – a. Now that Macrovision has sold their software business, do we still have representation? Brent will try to find out. b. COSMOS update: Jason is a committer. Eric Rose from IBM is nominated to be committer. IBM and SAS are both going through legal process to contribute code. Reviewing Change Analyzer code from IBM that parses and analyzes SDDs to identify what can be used. SAS has code that will handle a lot of the mechanics like processing artifacts, discovering versions, etc. The team is currently gathering requirements for the installation of the full COSMOS project deliverables. The goal is to use the SDD runtime being developed to install COSMOS. Also want to include registration of the deployed software with the COSMOS CMDB. Net, the SDD runtime is really “getting off the ground”. Brent notes that this is significant progress. Company participants in this work are SAS, IBM, CA and Compuware. Jason is working to grow that list. We discuss whether participation in this work constitutes use of the specification that qualifies for an OASIS statement of use. i.e. if we have 3 companies as open-source project contributors, would that qualify as the 3 statements of use? c. Statement of use is a statement from the OASIS TC Process: Statement of Use", with respect to a specification, is a written statement by an OASIS Organizational Member stating that it is successfully using or implementing that specification in accordance with the conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. Also, from Brent’s notes from the TC Editor/Chair briefing given by Mary McRae at last year's OASIS Symposium: . Statements of use can be of many forms (interop/prototype/etc.; need not be products) Brent would like us to have a discussion soon re: expected statements of use. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 03/20/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 6 meeting (Note: March 13 meeting was cancelled)
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Last week's meeting attendance
3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of end of day March 18 -- Public Review is now complete!) - next step: incorporate updates to specification and initiate approval of Committee Specification (ballot performed by OASIS TC Administrator)
4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated all agreed-upon changes (Lazar's changes, Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, updated "Conditions", "substitution value" and "weights" explanations to use the existing (updated by Randy) example). Updated version was posted for review; can consider a motion to open ballot for final approval. B. Starter Profile Material -- Updates after approval ballot complete and approved; working on publication. C. Example Updates: complete and posted (we should probably formally approve these as Committee Draft?) D. Conformance Document -- Updates after ballot approval were posted; need to approve the updates and then incorporate the result into the specification. E. Version 1.1: Initiate discussion of items to address and prioritize those items. Brent will post a mapping of known deferred items to supporting use cases.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We have a quorum.
1. Minutes for our last meeting are approved without comment or objection.
2. Last week’s meeting was cancelled with short notice. It will not affect anyone’s voting rights.
3. Primer discussion Brent notes a small number of changes that need to be made including: a) The addition of a ResultingResource statement to the SimpleAppClient example. b) A note from Lazaar that should have been addressed and removed. c) Reword the text about the monolithic example to talk about the features rather than the support for multiple operating systems. d) 3 minor editing issues that Julia found.
Motion to open ballot to approve the primer was made, seconded and passed.
4. Conformance chapter discussion Three minor changes were made and have been reviewed. Motion to open ballot to approve conformance chapter was made, seconded and passed. Julia will merge in the conformance chapter to the specification, modify URL’s and post – today. Merri will review the merge and Brent will generate pdf and html files.
5. Example ballot Motion to open ballot to approve the examples was made, seconded and passed.
6. OASIS Symposium Brent, Randy and Julia submitted a presentation proposal and agreed to do a tutorial instead. Brent will post the slides for that tutorial so TC members can review. These will be submitted tomorrow so if you see anything that needs significant change please send comments immediately. (There will be some opportunity to modify this after tomorrow.) Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 03/06/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 28 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Last week's meeting attendance - New TC rules (see e-mail)
3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of 8:00 a.m. ET March 05). [PR ends in 12 days!]
4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated Lazar's recent changes, and Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, and updated the "Conditions" explanation to use the existing example. Currently working with Randy on updated examples to illustrate approved suggestions from Lazar (weights and substitution value examples) B. Starter Profile Material -- Review ballot results. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Primer & Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote. D. Conformance Document -- Review ballot results.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We have a quorum.
1. Feb. 28 meeting minutes approved without objection.
2. Administrative (1): Because of technical (phone and e-mail) problems last week, all regular attendees and/or those who sent e-mail indicating their difficulty attending will be counted as present for last week's meeting for determining voting rights.
3. Administrative (2): The OASIS Steering Committee has approved a few process changes (e- mailed to the TC). The only one that is likely to affect us, at least in the near term, is that we must designate ONE of the forms of documents we publish (Word, PDF, HTML) as the "authoritative" version (presumably this will be our Word documents in most/all cases).
4. Administrative (3): Julia left the meeting unexpectedly. The minutes here were provided by Brent. (Thank you Brent.) 5. No new public review comments received. Brief discussion about revisiting Jason's public review comment that was closed last week; Julia/Randy to discuss offline.
6. Primer: Brent has all changes complete except additions of weights and substitution values. Because these need to be added to examples, Brent working with Randy to add to examples (Randy will post updates), then add to Primer. Review "final" Primer draft next week and consider for subsequent vote.
7. Starter Profile: Ballot passed with more than a Full Majority. There were minor comments from Randy and Julia. Jason has made and posted an update to address those comments. We reviewed the updated draft and approved it unanimously; this updated draft will be the Committee Draft (CD01) draft to be published. Merri agreed, in Jason's absence, to make the remaining updates necessary for publication (change URIs on cover page, change footer, other "housekeeping" items). Brent will use Merri's result and generate PDF and HTML versions of the document. Brent to check with Mary McRae of OASIS to see if we need to define namespaces and generate RDDL documents for the Starter Profile like we did for the specification/schema (we think not, because Starter Profile is expository, not normative, but we'll find out for sure).
8. Examples: Randy to update examples as noted in earlier "Primer" discussion.
9. Conformance Document: Ballot passed with more than a Full Majority. Randy, Julia and Robert Dickau had comments. Merri has been working to address these comments; we believe we have the substance of the updated document complete. Brent has folded the Conformance information into the "Conformance" chapter of the specification, which is where it is intended to end up. Still have a few updates to complete to the material to finish addressing comments. We'll review the updated document next week and we can vote on the amended document during the call. Because this is an addition to the specification, it won't be published separately (it will be published with the next level of the specification).
10. Other business: Randy asked about requirements for publishing expository documents; responses/plans are described in earlier "Starter Profile" item of these minutes. Randy observed that we're nearing completion on our "remaining work" items and asked about moving toward considering the specification version 1.1 items. Brent noted that we have a list of deferred items. Randy recommended that we map those items to existing use cases as a place to start the version 1.1 discussion and the TC agreed with this approach; Brent will do this (target next week). We'll review items and discuss a plan for moving forward with version 1.1 content, although once public review ends for version 1.0, we'll need to continue progressing that specification through the standardization process (we're nearing the end!). One participant claimed that Jason was partying while the TC was working earnestly, but no motion was raised to address this. :-)
Meeting adjourned approximately 11:30 a.m. US Eastern time. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/28/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 21 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)
3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of 8:00 a.m. ET Feb. 28; however, we have the open item about VersionRangeType continued from last week).
4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated Lazar's recent changes, and Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, and is working on remaining approved suggestions from Lazar (conditions & weights in an existing example; add substitution value example) B. Starter Profile Material -- BALLOT OPEN FOR APPROVAL. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote. D. Conformance Document -- BALLOT OPEN FOR APPROVAL.
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES The phone system was not working today. Jason sent an email with an alternate phone number and enough people called in to create a quorum. Because of the phone difficulties, today will not count as an absence for voting right purposes.
1. Minutes approval: Minutes from February 21 approved without objection.
2. Administrative
3. Public Review Comments – VersionRangeType Julia explains her objection to the proposal this way… Version and fix name in the SDD schema represent two distinct concepts from the domain we are modeling with the SDD. The concept of version covers information about the software level that is single, that is, there can be only one current “version”. e.g. If you know that the version is 2.1.0.2 then you know that it is not 2.1.0.3. But realize that version does not have to be numeric and does not have to be called “version”. If it is something that follows this pattern, i.e. there is only one current value for it, then it matches the concept of version. Fixes, on the other hand, are multiple. That is, there can be many different fixes all reported as being applied to the software at the same time. e.g. Knowing that Fix 123 is installed does not tell you anything about whether or not any other fix is installed. Jason brings up the concept of supersedes and wonders if this really indicates that the concepts of version and fix as described are too simple. The response is that there is much implied knowledge about both versions and fixes and this implied knowledge really does vary dramatically. But, version and fix in the SDD are not about implied knowledge. They are there to map to information reported about the level of software on the system. Jason asks how the Windows concept of Service Pack would be modeled given this view of things. The response is that Windows concept of Service Pack is part of the information provided about the Windows operating system that matches the concept of version. As such, it should be modeled as part of the version string. Jason notes that this is essentially what the proposal is trying to accomplish. By moving fix name into min and max version, it becomes part of the expression of the structure of the Window’s version. The response is that we considered at one of the F2F meetings (prior to Jason joining our group) adding schema to provide a structure for versions. In the end, we recognized that, while many uses of version were structured, there was no single structure that would work for all real-world existing versions. We decided that understanding the version was the job of the runtime and the capability was communicated via runtime. That is, it is up to the runtime to understand the structure of version for a particular resource type and to communicate via profile how that structure is represented in the version value string. We had some discussion of the possibility of revisiting the provision of a version structure in the 1.1 time frame and there is general agreement that it is worth having that discussion – noting that any change will have to be backwardly compatible. (This can be as simple as providing a choice between string and the structured format.) Jason withdraws the proposal for 1.0 and will guide the COSMOS runtime work to define the structure of Windows version to be represented in the value strings used in the SDD.
4. Primer – status as described in the agenda. No additional discussion today.
5. Starter Profile – YES votes are coming in. Julia had three comments which Jason has addressed.
6. Example Update - No discussion of this topic.
7. Conformance Document – YES votes are coming in. Julia had quite a few comments and suggested changes. Merri has looked at those comments and disagrees with some of them. We discuss a possible compromise for one aspect of the disagreement that involves leaving in Julia’s additions to the “2.2 Extended Properties in CL2” table but not deleting the “2.4 Altered Properties in CL2” table. Merri said she would think about it. Brent said he would look at the modified text and respond with a compromise suggestion. Julia also suggested changing “Properties” to “Types”. It was noted that this had been changed previously from “Data Types” to “Properties” because of a comment by Brent. After a short discussion, Brent was comfortable with letting this be Types.
8. Old/new business There was a COSMOS discussion call with Jason and Dell people. DMTF is proposing OVF format (Open Virtualization Format). Some people think OVF is similar to SDD, John is unsure that there's overlap currently, but thinks that there might be in the future as OVF expands. He suggests we contact DMTF to find out what OVF is and what overlap there might be. Brent has some knowledge of this and will follow up. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/21/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 7 and February 14 meetings
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)
3. Public review comments review & disposition (one new PR comment received (from Jason Losh) as of 1:00 p.m. ET Feb. 20).
4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated Lazar's recent changes, and Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, and is working on remaining approved suggestions from Lazar (conditions & weights in an existing example; add substitution value example) B. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote. D. Conformance Document -- initial review and determine plans for publication
5. Old/new business
MINUTES We do have a quorum, Brent agrees to take notes/act as temporary secretary in Julia’s absence.
9. Minutes approval: Minutes from February 7 and February 14 approved without objection
10. Administrative: reminder from Brent that maintaining voting rights requires that a TC member not miss two consecutive meetings (some members recently have missed two consecutive meetings). Brent offers that if significant votes are taken by ballot, then active members who have temporarily lost voting rights MAY be added to vote on particular ballots if the TC agrees.
11. One new public review comment (from Jason Losh, SAS). Problem is no good way to specify fix “ranges” similar to version ranges. Proposal is to add fixName to minVersion, maxVersion.
Some e-mail discussion has occurred; question raised about fixName semantics and whether or not less than/greater than comparisons can be applied to fixName, or just equality tests. Underlying problem is similar to the general version problem, which is that different vendors use different methods for fixes (as they do for versions), with some having cumulative fixes/fix packs that lend themselves to “range” comparison, whereas others don’t.
Jason believes that the original proposal still has value in accommodating additional cases (although not all cases) for specification v1.0 and then revisiting overall version/fix topic for v1.1.
Question raised if the proposal is to “move” fixName from its current location to minVersion/maxVersion or to add it to minVersion/maxVersion so that it appears in both places. Jason states that original proposal was to move it, but current thinking is to have it in both places.
Those on the call generally agreed that the proposal improves the specification and doesn’t hurt anything, noting that this makes fixName more symmetric with Version and also could improve the likelihood of backward compatibility if we do pursue a more robust approach to this topic in specification v1.1. We also agreed to table any decision and continue the discussion (via e-mail and/or at future TC calls) to allow Julia and Randy (who have been active participants in the discussion thus far) to weigh in further (along with any others who wish to weigh in).
12. Remaining work (non-normative documents):
1. Primer: Brent is about halfway done with the changes agreed to last week. Lazar’s changes and Brent’s responses to Julia’s previous comments are complete; working on remaining items (including weights and conditions in existing examples and adding substitution value explanation). Target new version next week.
2. Starter profile: Jason posted an updated version; only minor updates.
Motion (Merri) and second (Howard) to open a ballot starting next Monday for approval of Starter Profile as a Committee Draft. Motion carries without objection. Ballot will stay open for approximately 10 days and permit active committee members to vote (see item 2 above).
3. Example: no actions; examples will be updated appropriately in response to any items in Primer or Starter Profile (Randy previously agreed to do these updates and has been keeping examples up to date).
4. Conformance document: Merri posted an updated version; only minor updates. Discussion of where to publish this information; Brent confirmed that including this in the specification would NOT be a “substantive change” per OASIS process.
Motion (Jason) and second (Merri) to include this information as part of the Conformance chapter of the specification (rather than as a separate expository document) when the document is approved. Motion carries without objection.
Motion (Merri) and second (Jason) to open a ballot starting next Monday for approval of Conformance document as a Committee Draft (to add to specification as noted above). Motion carries without objection. Ballot will stay open for approximately 10 days and permit active committee members to vote (see item 2 above).
5. Old/new business: Brent notes that he will forward any public review comments to the TC when they are received, although the public mailing list used for public review comments is accessible to anyone via the TC Public Web page.
Meeting adjourns at 11:30 eastern time. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/14/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
0. Elect temporary secretary (Julia will miss this meeting, or at least be unable to take notes if she can call in)
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 7 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)
- Happy Valentine's Day!
3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of 7:30 a.m. ET Feb. 13).
4. Remaining work
A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- review Lazar's changes; determine plan for final version for publication. Note: example updates may be required to match updated examples from item 4C.
B. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote.
C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote.
D. Conformance Document -- initial review and determine plans for publication.
5. Old/new business
MINUTES We do NOT have a quorum, and cannot elect a temporary secretary or approve the minutes. Robert D. and Brent agree to take notes.
6. No new public review comments. Tom Studwell to discuss with Randy a comment on FixName: change needed to assoc FixName with both Min and Max; for 1.1, TC has some work to do on versioning.
7. Lazar’s updates to Primer: Brent is fine with all of them, and consensus is that the approach is correct. Brent suggests incorporating Lazar’s updates (which in turn include Brent’s comments, and Julia agrees they’re satisfactory). Suggest accepting all of Lazar’s updates and creating a merged document.
Lazar sent out notes proposing substitution values and existing conditional context. The composite example covers conditional content; do we need another example? Or just move anything new required information to composite example? Idea is to make conditions in composite example more complicated. Brent volunteers to take a stab at updating examples in Chapter 5.
Substitution values: examples don't explain enough about how they work. Lazar to forward the e-mail that prompted the question (Ed independently received a question about substitution values, too). Brent to produce next revision of primer.
8. Starter profile: Jason updated prose document based on Julia’s feedback, but is not happy with the wording; added section under 2.1, concerning producers vs. consumers, which spells out best practices, but would appreciate review and wordsmithing.
Jason and Julia’s discussions have raised questions about whether things that are generic (such as CIM_InstalledProduct) are specific enough for a runtime to discover and manage.
Action is for everyone to review the changes and prepare to discuss issues raised by discussion.
9. Conformance document from Merri: supplements explication of conformance levels and what’s different between then. Document was inspired by a question from the COSMOS team; Merri began by diff-ing schema files and organizing the differences.
There’s some question about whether to keep it a separate expository doc as opposed to an appendix or section of the full spec. It’s apparently easier in an administrative sense to publish it as a separate doc for 1.0, and we can consider integrating as an addition to the spec for 1.1.
10. No further old or new business. Meeting adjourns 20 minutes early. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 02/07/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
0. Elect temporary chair (Brent will most likely miss this meeting)
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from January 31 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Primer approval ballot closed Monday, Feb. 4 -- did not pass with FULL majority. Need to review Lazar's example proposed changes and determine any modifications to Primer and, at appropriate time, open new ballot.
3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of noon ET Feb. 5).
4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- review changes resulting from ballot (including Lazar's proposal); determine plan and vote for final version for publication. B. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote.
5. Old/new business
MINUTES We have a quorum.
1. Julia is elected temporary chair.
2. Minutes for 1/31/2007 are approved without comment or objection.
3. Primer – a. The vote did not pass – not enough people voted. We had some discussion of intent of vote and why it was changed to a full-majority ballot. Some people thought the ballot was only for the purpose of collecting comments and seeing if everyone thought we were moving in the right direction. Others thought the result would be the posting of the primer – which is the thing that would cause it to be a Committee Draft by OASIS definitions and need a full majority vote. (Although there is even some question on whether that is correct – i.e. will the primer ever need to be a CD?) b. How will we go forward? Lazar posted updates to one of the chapters to illustrate his suggestions. Randy has reviewed Lazar’s updates and likes them. He proposes that we modify the primer to be written in the style as posted by Lazar. (Lazar wants to know if the optional language packs are for the simple client or for the J2EE- Application. Randy will answer off-line.) Randy asks if Lazar is willing to complete modifying the document? He says OK. (Thank you Lazar!) John also has comments. He prefers to leave the JRE as the first in the list. Does not see value add in the building block paragraph. There is no definition of building block. Randy agrees that we should not introduce the term building block. Lazar does not agree with these objections. He thinks the building block concept is important – a different term could be used, but the explanation needs to be there. The concern about the order may be mitigated when the whole document is changed. It needs to be consistent once all the changes are made. Motion made again to have Lazar modify the whole document. Seconded. John requests that Julia make the modifications, we rework this request to ask that Julia plan to review thoroughly and edit as soon as the rework is posted. Lazar thinks he can get this rework done by early next week.
4. Profile – Jason posted a new zip file last night with changes to the doc and profile schema. a. Section 2 of the document has a couple of new paragraphs that talk about profile usage. He will rework a little more to talk about the profile extension concept in terms of the three choices: 1: Use one or more existing profiles – because they define everything you need. 2: Use one or more existing profiles that have some of what you need and create a new profile to add additional things you need. 3: Create a new profile with the definitions you need. b. Jason added a statement about interoperability and asks if we are all OK with it? No objections are stated – but not everyone has read it yet. c. A fictional new profile, abcprofile.xsd, was added to demonstrate profile extension. d. Discussion of the question raised re: how to represent a requirement on a Windows service pack check. Jason and Randy suggest that this can be handled by using FixName for service pack. This leads to a debate about VersionRangeValue and whether FixName goes with the Range of values or with MinVersion/MaxVersion. In the schema, it is associated with range. It may need to be associated with Min and Max version instead. Do we need a comment for Public Review opened? Julia does not buy the service pack as FixName proposal yet and will discuss off-line with Jason. e. We think/hope that we can vote on the primer next week. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 01/31/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from January 24 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Primer approval ballot now open (closes Monday, Feb. 4)
3. Public review comments review & disposition [no new comments as of 01/30/2008 8:00 a.m. US eastern time]
4. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote. B. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote.
5. Old/new business
MINUTES We have a quorum.
1. Minutes for 1/24/2008 are approved without objection.
2. Administrative a. Reminder that Primer ballot is open and closes next Monday. Lazar posted/e-mailed comments; we will add this to today's agenda for discussion if time permits b. No new public review comments received.
3. Starter Profile and Primer discussion a. Jason will add examples to the doc before next week i. extending a profile ii. defining a requirement on specific Windows version and service pack level b. Determine if the profile needs to be updated based on this example work (and make the updates if any are required).
4. SDD Primer discussion a. Lazar would prefer to see the primer organized from the perspective of someone who is going to create an SDD rather than explaining an existing SDD. He will rework one section so we can all look at it and then decide if we want to rework the whole document. b. The current vote on the primer makes it a Committee Draft. That doesn’t prevent us reworking the doc for the next CD. Since there is discussion on the table for some serious changes, we can decide not to publish this first CD. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 01/24/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from January 17 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Public review submission status - Primer approval ballot now open (closes Monday, Feb. 4) - Updated standard adoption schedule posted
3. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- "schema" format in place; prose document to be updated (Jason) [see Jan. 10, Jan. 17 minutes]. Determine readiness for review & vote. B. COSMOS SDD runtime effort overview & introduction -- including e- mail question about use cases (Jason) [10 minutes]
4. Public review comments review & disposition
5. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We do not start with a quorum but achieve quorum by 10 after.
5. Minutes for January 17, 2008 are approved without comment or objection.
6. Administrative a. The public review began (finally!) on January 18th and will close on March 18th. There is one comment already – from a TC member on a minor error in the schema files. Also, Merri notes a difference between the CL1 schema and the CL2 schema. We want to change CL1 schema. Should this be posted as a comment? CL1 is non- normative so no public review comment is needed. Brent will clarify with a note on the public page – i.e. state that the CL1 schema is a subset of the CL2 schema provided for convenience and is non-normative. Brent will also find out more about where non-normative docs will be posted and see about having the CL1 schema moved. b. Primer ballot is open. Please review it (it isn’t very long) and vote. You can include comments in your vote. Note that Julia has made a lot of comments which can be seen in a marked-up version of the primer posted on the TC document page. c. The updated standard adoption schedule shows May 1st as the earliest likely adoption date.
7. Starter Profile – Jason has posted new version of the primer and xsd files. a. Architecture check type was changed to CIM processor. b. Values of CIM operating system and processor have been reconciled – i.e. values in profile are now identical to names used in CIM. c. Jason requests help related to file system values. Randy will check and get back to Jason. d. TOC is wrong – Jason will update. e. Profile class definitions have been moved to an appendix. f. Attribute sections were created to consolidate attribute information and make the doc easier to follow. g. Section 2.1 has a statement about the SDD not governing profiles. Jason asks if we want to make recommendations. I.e. give some structure as to how you would work with profiles. e.g. Suggest that the first step is to look for existing profiles that meet your needs; If not find one to use as a starting point and extend it; Last choice is to create your own. If you extend or make your own, contribute back to the TC. Will also make recommendation that implementations provide extension points so that SDD authors can provide a means to deal with resource and artifact types they add to their profile that are not supported by the runtime. h. The SDD Primer assumes artifacts are defined in profiles. They aren’t there now. Should they be? We say yes and Jason will add. We decided on a simple enumeration. Please review the profile primer now. Get comments to Jason by Tuesday the 29th. Jason will get updates to Randy by Wednesday and Randy will update example to match. Then we will go over everything next Thursday.
8. COSMOS runtime project overview and update (from Jason). Use case formulation is in progress. Work can be seen on the COSMOS wiki. These are high level use cases for tools and runtime. Next step will be to open “Enhancement Requests” for enhancements to COSMOS for specific use cases. Detailed designs are done under the ERs.
9. Merri is working on an appendix that explains more about CL1 and CL2. She would like to post it as a separate document now. It cannot be added to the spec until 1.1. We would like to include it with the other expository documents, like the primer – after the TC has reviewed and approved.
10. Question about potential F2F meetings – so people can plan travel. Are we going to wait until we instantiate 1.1 and then schedule a meeting? Do we want a F2F to kick-off 1.1? Noted that we had a F2F to kick-off 1.0 – and it happened after 1.0 use cases and requirements were done and when there were submissions to review. Noted that 1.1 could be used as an opportunity to update the charter. Changing the charter requires a re-chartering process which would also be a way to invite others to join. Noted that we have a list of items deferred to 1.1. We can pull that out in the near future and use it to create use cases for 1.1. Brent will make sure that list is posted and notes that it is a partial list.
11. Randy has posted updates to the CL1 and CL2 schema with the minor link problem fixed.
12. John notes that an SDD presentation is on the agenda for EclipseCon with question marks next to it. Is someone thinking of presenting. Jason will check this out. Brent, Randy and Julia have submitted a proposal to the OASIS symposium and have been asked to do a tutorial instead of a presentation. We will know by the end of the month if this is accepted. The content of this tutorial might be re-used at EclipseCon. But EclipseCon is March 17-20, more than a month before the OASIS conference (April 28 – 5/1). Jason has a conflict and is not a candidate for presenting an EclipseCon. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 01/17/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval Meeting Minutes from January 10 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Public review submission status
3. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- "schema" format in place; prose document to be updated (Jason) [see Jan. 10 minutes]. Determine readiness for review & vote. B. Primer -- accept John's updates and a few additional updates (Brent) see Jan. 10 minutes]. Determine readiness for review & vote. C. COSMOS SDD runtime effort overview & introduction -- including e-mail question about use cases(Jason) [10 minutes] D. OASIS Symposium -- opportunity for tutorial
4. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We do not start with a quorum but achieve quorum by 10 after.
1. Minutes for 1/10/2008 are approved as posted.
2. Public review has still not begun. We are at the top of Mary MacRae’s list but she is apparently having connection difficulties and is not able to get our documents put in the correct location.
3. Brent posted a primer that is probably ready for review. John completed the composite application description. Brent embedded example snippets and did some light editing. He also placed snippets in other locations. Brent also completed chapter 5 in the document. Brent asks if we think the scope of the content is now about right? No comments. Please share thoughts on this via email if you think of something. Brent suggest we put this up for review now using an electronic ballot and allow comments. We can decide that abstain means agreement. Use of the electronic ballot is a way to make it easy to everyone’s comments in one place – it is not required for this non-normative document. The intent is to post this primer with a link on the front page of our public TC site. It would not be subject to formal comments. Moved, seconded and passed – open an electronic ballot as described.
4. OASIS symposium is coming up at end of April. Call for papers went out a while ago. Randy, Julia and Brent submitted an abstract for an overview paper. The symposium committee has asked us to turn that into a tutorial. Has anyone else submitted something for the symposium? No response. Does the TC have an opinion on delivering a tutorial at the symposium – and is there someone willing to assist with that? (Symposium is the week of April 28th in Santa Clara, CA. The tutorial would be on the 28th.) Howard is in that area and will possibly attend. Randy asks if discussion of the COSMOS work in the tutorial is appropriate and useful. Yes, it is appropriate.
5. COSMOS runtime effort – Jason wanted to give us an overview, but cannot be here today. Merri fills in. The runtime group met for several hours at IBM on Monday and came up with two sets of use cases – one for tooling and one for deployment. Tools are a build time generator and a packaging tool. For deployment, the hope is to take the use cases created by the SDD TC and adopt those for the runtime. Does anyone have a problem with this? The use cases do have company names included – i.e. the company that submitted the use case. Note that the use cases are already publicly available on our TC site and it is a TC-approved document. It appears that the OASIS copyright allows re- publishing and derivitative works from the published documents – which means that there would not be a problem. Brent will double check with OASIS. Merri will check on the Eclipse side to make sure there is no problem importing this information into COSMOS – which is an Eclipse project.
6. Old/New Business – none. We adjourn early.
Please review the primer, post comments and vote. Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 01/10/2008 Meeting
AGENDA 11:05 AM ET Roll Call
1. Minutes approval Meeting Minutes from December 13 meeting
2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Public review submission status
3. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- "schema" format in place, need to update with values submitted by TC members; prose document to be updated (Jason) [see Dec. 13 minutes] B. Primer -- initial content posted (Brent); updates posted (John); need review and a few additional updates to complete
4. Old/new business
** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time
MINUTES We have a quorum.
1. Meeting Minutes from December 13 meeting are approved without comment.
2. Administrative a. Public Review status – We submitted everything required from the TC for the public review to the OASIS staff on December 13th. The staff has still not started the public review. This puts us behind on our schedule by a month. There isn’t anything we can do to change this – the public review must be a full 60 days. What we can do is try to address comments quickly. Typically comments come in at the end of the review period. Minor things can just be done by the editors. Substantive issues must be brought up in a TC meeting. All comments must be acknowledged – Brent will handle this. All comments must be addressed – Brent will send out information as appropriate. b. Action items – there are several old action items. We have not been using action items. Two are done, others are out-of-date or deferred. We vote to close them all.
3. Remaining work a. Starter Profile – Jason updated the docs earlier today based on our agreements made at our last meeting and has incorporated additional classes suggested by individual companies. Jason would like some help determining how to wrap up the document. It ends abruptly now after the classes are described. Additional information could include instructions or examples on how to use profiles. Pointers to examples would be good. Also include a discussion, plus examples, of how the values in the profiles are used in SDDs. Also include information on how to extend profiles. Comment – data type and valid value definitions should be separate. Comment – there are some valid values that do not match the ones defined in CIM. If we are using the same, or a subset of CIM, we should use the same values. Jason will stick to using the family types from CIM and put a note in the document about the correspondence with CIM values. Comment – CIM models objects, not just resources. It makes for a bit of a mismatch. Randy and Jason will talk more about this off-line. Comment – Refer to the SDD primer.
Please get any additional suggestions for additional classes to Jason ASAP.
Once Jason tells us this is ready for review, the review process will be similar to what we’ve done for the specification. Even though this is not normative, it is informative and public and we’ll take a vote on it after the review.
b. SDD Primer – John posted an update that included his action item to provide text explaining the composite example. (Noted: “quite good”). John notes that some examples will need to change to match the final starter profile. Do we want to embed example files (attach) or inline them? We have both in the doc. Noted that it is easier to maintain if they are linked, but much easier to read and understand if they are inline. Another option is to put them in an appendix. Also, snippets could be inlined instead of full examples. Snippets could be combined with appendix or attachment or pointer to example files in appendix. Specification uses inline snippets combined with an appendix containing a link. We like this last suggestion best. Brent will take the pen now for the primer and change the examples and fill in content for chapter 5. Everyone – please review John’s changes (THIS WEEK) – or the whole thing if you haven’t reviewed yet. Is there more work after Brent makes changes? Brent might call on individuals for help with chapter 5. We should be ready for a review in one or two more rounds of editing.
4. New/old business: a. New work item. Examples need to be updated. Randy says he’ll do it once we finalize the starter profile. Also, Randy asks that people review the examples (THIS WEEK) and look for things that are maybe not quite how we would like to do things and suggest updates. b. John suggests that Jason walk us through the COSMOS work on our next call. Jason notes that subscribing to cosmos-dev can be useful. Also, there is a recurring call on Tuesdays at 9am. Progress can be monitored by attending the meeting or following the work on the wiki. Now is the time to start participating if you intend to participate at all.