ebxml-coord message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: Minutes from meeting of 26th Sept. 2000

ebXML Quality Review Group
 minutes of Conference Call Sept 26, 2000
Written by:  Tim McGrath, Sept 27, 2000
Tim McGrath (Acting Chair), Murray Maloney, Jon Bosak, Nagwa
Abdelghfour, Joe Baran

1. Welcome (please be on time...)
2. Technical Specifications:
* documents submitted
* documents in pipeline
* protocol for reviews
3. Public documents or presentations with technical content
4. Technical content on the ebXML website
5. Any Other Business
6. Action plan
7. Next Meeting


1. Tim agreed to Chair the meeting.

2. Over the past week there have been several issues raised about the
review of the TA Specification:
a. Establishing that the correct version was reviewed
Tim reported to the executive that it was indeed the latest version
b. The role of the QR review and the Executive in document submissions
The Steering Committee have sought to clarify the review procedures.  No
action required by the QR Team.
c. Whether a TA Specification is a pre-requisite to others
The opinion of this Team is that the TA Specification is to be developed
in parallel and will describe the other specifications.  As such, it is
not a pre-requisite.
d. Defining what an ‘Architecture’ specification should contain
Duane has asked for examples to demonstrate a proper Architecture
specification.  Joe commented that some members of the TA Team (Jeff
Suttor) were developing a sample section.
The Team agreed to post the background papers for the TA Spec. review to
the QR webpage and notify interested parties.
Joe reported that the TRP Team are moving ahead with the reliable
messaging specification.  It was not yet clear if this was to part of
the Message Service Specification or separate document.  The TRP Team
are having a face-to-face meeting this week.  There is no definite
timeframe for this document.
Nagwa reported that RegRep are planning to have document for  voting at
the Tokyo Plenary (6 weeks).  This means it should be submitted on the
next week for QR.
Tim reported that the BP/CC Delivery team have revised the metamodel
document and used it to develop a Use Case based on the Automotive
Industry.  This example will be submitted to the PoC Team for
demonstration at the Tokyo plenary. It was agreed that the QR Process
did not apply to the PoC examples.
The formal 5-day review process applied only to material which will be
put to a Plenary vote.
Core Components intend to submit a revised Methodogy document to QR in
the week prior to the Tokyo Plenary.
The ebXML Glossary has not yet been submitted but be any day now.
This schedule may mean at least one document per week up until the Tokyo
Nagwa: Forward notes on the TA Specification review to Tim
Tim: Publish to web page and advise Executive and Steering committee.

3. Murray reported on positive discussion with Simon Nicholson and
Murray will be attending the MAE Teleconfernece next Tuesday to explain
the QR processes for marketing deliverables.  This was defined as…
a. The aim is to ensure a quality process has been followed.
b. QR will not conduct a formal 5-day review
c. The process will seek to ensure that the relevant Project Team
responsible has approved the technical content.  The MAE Liaison’s
(Murray’s) role is to steer the deliverable’s technical content and seek
Project Team approval at appropriate stages.
d. Final deliverables should be posted to the QR team and the MAE
Liaison (Murray) 48 hours prior to public release.
e. The MAE Liaison (Murray) will asess whether the technical content and
can recommend public release or pass on the the QR team.  The QR Team
will recommend public release or pass the material on the the Executive.

f. If the MAE Team receive no reponse within 48 hours the document can
be released.
Murray also noted that the MAE Team are currently developing a White
Paper which will need review very soon.
Murray: Review processes above and comment before presenting to the MAE

4. Tim reported that James Carroll had offerred his services to assist
with the web site management and that this had been added to the Team’s
agenda.  Murray agreed to follow up with the MAE team.
Murray: follow up at MAE Team meeting.

5. a. Following an action item from 2 weeks ago, Tim reported that a
Word template document is the format currently being applied to all
technical specifications.  The Team expressed concern about the
proprietary nature of this format and that the initiative should adopt
the tools it preaches.  W3C publish technical specifications using the
XML specs, DTDs and stylesheets available from Eve Maler.  However, they
require at least all Team Editors to have appropriate tools (eg XMetal)
to maintain the content.
Jon: check licensing and costs with SoftQuad (owners of XMetal). This is
to form the basis of a submission to the Executive.
Tim:  the Team Leader’s participation in teleconferences is to be
scheduled for discussion at next meeting’s agenda.

6. Action Items as per each point

7. Murray and Tim have issues with the current timeslot and it was
agreed to move to earlier in the day.  Therefore the next meeting will
be on Tuesday 3rd October at 08:00 am Pacific Time.
Call-In Number TBA
                              Intern'l Call-In TBA
                              Participant Code TBA

End of document

tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142


tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
fn:tim mcgrath

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC