ebSOA Meeting 7.18.06
Attendees
George Brown
Sally St. Amand
Kathyrn Breininger
David Webber
Regrets
Goran Zugic
George is working on 2 use cases to be the scenarios to put the specifications in context.
We reviewed the schedule that Goran prepared earlier. In fact it was recirculated as it is was inadvertently omitted as an attachment to the meeting announcement.
George raised the question of how does each person contribute to developing the specification. This led to a discussion of how the specification should be constructed.
Kathryn sent out a link to the OASIS process, which includes a template.
George stated that the specification should include the schema.
David argued for the xsd not being included in the specification; he described the requirements of the OASIS process and how that might slow down approval because of procedural issues. He referenced the ebBP to illustrate the point.
David suggested the following
- Specification would be just the core framework, a very lean document
- a second section of associated artifacts, including any schema
- An explanation how to use it
George stated that he felt the core framework needed to include and emphasize semantic integration and standards convergence. Use of a conceptual architecture is a good approach.
David: spec is simple and to the point. A first cut could be a document of the Table of Contents outlining each section (what goes where)
Table of Contents
Introduction –lift from Vision Statement or work that preceded it
Section 1 Core Framework
Section 2 Associated Artifacts
Section 3 Methodology
Use cases need to be agreed upon early on; they communicate what is needed.
George: to have interoperability certain protocols have to be adopted.
Gaps will exist; they will need to be filed. Needs to be stated.
The architecture we develop by definition has to be evolutionary. We need to state that; and to the extent possible describe future solutions.
Action Items:
Everyone to review previous schedule and draft of specification. For example, Use Cases are listed as a later deliverable, should they not be agreed upon earlier in the process; and, are the draft documents complete, do they contain duplicate elements (for example).
George will work on use case proposals and distribute to list.
Sally will send out broad outline of Tof C as a working document to engage contributions of all TC members.
Follow up with OASIS management on Vision Statement that was forward 3 weeks ago.
Update roster; per Kathryn’s suggestion send out emails to members who have not attended recently.