CGM Open Member Section —

Quarterly Report for 2009 Q3

Date: December 10, 2009
Author: Lofton Henderson (CGM Open Program Director)

Table of Contents

1 Preface...... 2

1.1 Period covered...... 2

1.2 Document status...... 2

1.3 Content...... 2

2 Activity summary for period...... 2

2.1 Management...... 2

2.2 Financial...... 3

2.3 Technical...... 3

3 Next quarter preview – Q4 / 2009...... 5

3.1 Management preview...... 5

3.2 Technical preview for next quarter...... 5

4 References...... 6

1 Preface

1.1 Period covered

July 1, 2009 through Sept 30, 2009.

The previous quarterly report may be found at [0]. (See “4. References”, at end.)

1.2 Document status

This quarterly report hasbeen reviewed and approved by the CGM Open Steering Committee (SC):

  • Stuart Galt (Boeing member)
  • Dieter Weidenbrueck (Chair)
  • Lofton Henderson (Program Director)

1.3 Content

This report is intended to give CGMO MS members an overview of the quarter. It is required by and also submitted to OASIS management.

The report looks at:

  • CGMO management highlights for the period,
  • CGMO financial highlights for the period.
  • Because almost all of the interests of CGMO MS are the technical activities of its single TC – the CGM Open WebCGM TC – a brief technical activity summary is provided also.

2 Activity summary for period

2.1 Management

MS-management related activities were relatively light in Q3.

Web site update: The CGM Open MS home page ( was brought up to date with latest news and milestones, mostly concerned with progress on WebCGM 2.1 development.

Budget review: Mid-year budget review with OASIS staff. Confirmed financial health of the MS, confirmed that the MS can retain reasonable excess revenue from good times as “operating reserve” for low revenue times.

BoD presentation: A Powerpoint presentation was prepared and (remotely) delivered to July meeting of OASIS Board.

Repeat items from previous reports:

MS Process and budget issues: There was discussion (2009/Q1) with OASIS management about proposed changes to how OASIS views budgeted, unspent funds. The Steering Committee had concern that proposed changes could be used to target our normal Operating Reserve, that ideally remains at the end of each year. Research by Staff indicated that the risk of such loss appears low, and does not appear to be in line with Management motivation for the changes. In fact, Staff pointed to our budget as a good one, during discussions. See [5a], as well as other related messages in the SC archive.

Budget: For comparison purposes, this was the approved 2008 budget (per Patrick Gannon and Cathie Mayo in January 2008):

  • Estimated MS income in 2008 (at 40% allocation): $37,870
  • Estimated total funds available in 2008: $51,663
    (Includes carry-over from 2007.)
  • Estimated total expenses: $43,300
  • PD wages for 12 months: $36,000
  • Estimated other (travel + membership + bad debt) : $7,300 ($5000 + $300 + $2000)

2009 Budget: This is the 2009 budget, approved by the OASIS Board in December 2008:

  • Estimated MS income in 2009 (at 40% allocation): $29,705
  • Estimated total funds available in 2008: $50,985
    (Includes carry-over from 2008.)
  • Estimated total expenses: $40,800
  • PD wages for 12 months: $36,000
  • Estimated other (travel + membership + bad debt) : $4,800 ($4000 + $300 + $500)

(Comment: Actual travel for 2009 is now anticipated to be less than half of the budgeted amount.)

(Actual financial data through September 2009 can be found in the next section.)

Other: Much of the CGMO MS management activity since the Clearwater meetings (May 2005) has revolved around producing a sustainable long-term financial posture. Recruitment and revenue enhancement is an ongoing focus. Please see previous minutes [0] (chain) for further details.

Any additional details may be found on the CGMO SC Web site [1] and the CGMO MS Web site [2].

2.2 Financial

Key financial data for 2009/Q3 are:

  • CGMO income for the period 2009-07-01 through 2009-09-30: $12,028.33 [09/q2 was $12,174.94]
  • Expenditures by CGMO for Q3 (jul-sep '09): $9,892.60 [ 09/q2 was $9,000.00]
  • Balance of funds available as of 2009-09-30: $31,108.91[09/q2 was $28,973.18]
  • Estimated deferred revenue balance sheet 2009-09-30: $23,062.89 [09/q2 was $21,264.42]
  • Any anticipated future revenue impacts due to changed membership during period: None in Q3.

Assessment: The projected CGMO financial position remains stable and apparently viable for 1-2 years operation at current levels. In fact, income is slightly ahead of forecast – the 2009 budget projected a 25% decrease in income. Active recruitment of new members remains a priority.

2.3 Technical

See WebCGM TC site [3] (“Documents”) for complete agenda, minutes, documents, TC membership, etc.

WebCGM TC technical activity on the WebCGM 2.1 spec continued to be light during 2009/Q3, as the active venue for (joint) WeCGM 2.1 remained in the the W3C WG, per the OASIS-W3C MoU.

The W3C WG almost completed its Candidate Recommendation (CR) process stage by the end of the 3rd quarter. This milestone (early 4th quarter) triggers the return of WebCGM 2.1 processing to the WebCGM TC, again per the OASIS-W3C MoU.

The principal TC focus was:

  1. finishing development of the 2.1 test suite,
  2. monitoring progress on the 2.1 implementations;
  3. tracking activity in the W3C WG as it moved into and through its CR phase.

Here are the highlights for the quarter.

  • WebCGM TC works on Test Suite, WebCGM WG has spec control. Under the extended OASIS-W3C MoU [18], the spec continues (as in Q2) under the review/change control of the W3C WebCGM Working group [4] for its processing cycles. The WebCGM TC continues to focus on the 2.1 Test Suite, and monitoring progress on implementations that conform to same.
  • [Repeat item] WebCGM 2.1 Requirements. Summary of scope of approved 2.1 requirements (see WebCGM 2.1 Requirements Document [9]):

1.)sub-string hotspots

2.)text search “how to” example (no new 2.1 functionality)

3.)regex APS addressing “how to” example (no new 2.1 functionality)

4.)more DOM/XCF Style Properties: pan-zoom; more line and fill attributes.

5.)geometric transform via DOM/XCF (but for 2.1, not intra-CGM ApsAttr).

6.)font interchange: a font-substitution file.

7.)default attributes: like a preferences file for underspecified CGM attributes

8.)z-compression: gzip compression of whole file as .cgmz.

9.)clarify interaction/prioritization of various transparency functionalities.

10.) get object extents: utility function for DOM programmers.

11.) redraw control: control when DOM-specified changes happen

12.) [declarative animation is confirmed as beyond 2.1 scope]

  • WebCGM TC milestones and work items for the 2009/Q3 quarter:
  • The TC switched from monitoring technical issues in the WebCGM WG (W3C) [4], to monitoring the progress of the WG's Candidate Recommendation (CR) phase. The WG continued to edit control of the spec (per the OASIS-W3C MoU [18]).
  • In Q2 and Q3, the WG (W3C) updated the spec with technical changes, and the progress of implementations during its CR phase indicates the likelihood of removal of a small number of technical features from the spec. (No one implemented them.)
  • The WG maintains an **UNAPPROVED**, often-changing editor's draft, whose differences from the latest public WD/CR versions can be seen in its change log [9h]. (Ed. Note: This draft, circa 1st December, OASIS-reformatted, is the basis of current Q4 ballots for CS and OS submission.)
  • WebCGM TC completed test suite assignments and made the first full public release of the WebCGM 2.1 test suite [17b]. The TC has begun montoring the status of implementations on the test suite.
  • A (W3C WG) face-to-face took place in late August, hosted by PTC in Ann Arbor, MI. It worked on the CR-publish and CR-exit requirements of the WG, andl included a “test fest” and final closure of any remaining open specification issues. CR was initiated in September, with closure in October (Q4).
  • The W3C CR process puts “at risk” a few WebCGM 2.1 features, meaning that they will be removed from the spec. if there are not implementations of those features by the end of CR.
  • Estimated completion and simultaneous publication of WebCGM 2.1 now looks most likely for Q1 of 2010.
  • Due principally to economic factors, the progress on WebCGM 2.1 completion slowed, and the project fell approximately a year behind the TC's original proposed time line [11a]. It is probably 1-2 months behind the revised more accurate projection in [11b] .
  • Teleconferences [8]:
  • In July: 07-jul, 22-jul
  • In August: 05-aug, 19-aug [, Ann Arbor F2F 24-26 Aug]
  • In September: 02-sep, 30-sep
  • Activity on WebCGM TC email list [7]:
  • July – 26
  • August – 29
  • September – 47
  • [cancelled] The Mantis-based Interoperability Tracking System (ITS) has been cancelled. It had progressed to the point of being linked from the cgmopen.org Web site. Work stalled just short of going public. At the end, all stakeholders agreed that much improved responsiveness of the CGM has pretty much removed the need for such a formal system.

Any available additional details will be found at the CGMO WebCGM TC Web site [3], and the W3C WebCGM WG site [4].

3 Next quarter preview – Q4 / 2009

3.1 Management preview

Expected next-quarter MS management activities:

  1. Annual SC election for one seat.
  2. Budget deliberations for 2010.
  3. Update website with new WebCGM events (in Q3 & Q4).
  4. Continue to seek new potential members.
  5. Continue to pursue and plan for a marketing and education program.
  6. Write, review, and post the MS Quarterly Report (every quarter).

3.2 Technical preview for next quarter

Highlights of expected next quarter technical activities:

  • 2.1 Test Suite [17b] maintenance. Respond to problem reports and fix bugs, update “ProfileEd” identifiers in tests as needed, assess coverage of the test suite.
  • Prepare to for MoU-specified return of WebCGM 2.1 back from W3C (post-CR version), reformat for OASIS compatibility.
  • Initiate OASIS public review, then CS ballot, then OS Submission ballot (in the TC).
  • Continue tracking implementations on per-test basis for new 2.1 tests.
  • Revise and update the old ICS forms to be correct for 2.0.
  • Refresh WebCGM product ICS pages and ensure current accuracy.
  • Design new 2.1 ICS forms.
  • Examine “Compositing” proposal for a small 2.2 upgrade. (Requested by several A&D users of CGM/WebCGM.) (Carried from last quarter.)

4 References

  • [0] Previous report (2009/Q2):
  • [1] CGMO SC pages:
  • [2] CGMO MS pages:
  • [3] CGMO WebCGM TC pages:
  • [4] W3C WebCGM WG home page:
  • [4b] WebCGM WG charter:
  • [5a] MS Process & budget:
  • [6] CGMO MS RoP:
  • [7] WebCGM TC mail archives:
  • [8] WebCGM TC documents:
  • [9a] draft WebCGM futures:
  • [9b] updated tech:
  • [9c] proposed additions:
  • [9d] TC-approved 2.1 rqts:
  • [9e] 2.1 3rd Committee Draft (CD03):
  • [9f] 2.1 Committee Specification (CS01):
  • [9g] 2.1 2nd LCWD spec:
  • [9h] 2.1 **unapproved** latest editor draft:
  • [10] WebCGM TC F2F minutes:
  • [11a] WebCGM 2.1 timeline:
  • [11b] revised proposed timeline:
  • [12a] TC-approved 2.0 errata (#1):
  • [12b] W3C-endorsed 2.0 errata (#2):
  • [12c] OASIS-published 2.0 errata (#2):
  • [13] W3C-endorsed 1.0 errata:
  • [14] WebCGM 2.0 OS:
  • [15] WebCGM 2.0 Rec:
  • [16a] 2.0 press release:
  • [16b] more 2.0 publicity:
  • [17a] 2.1 test add-on module:
  • [17b] 2.1 full TS:
  • [18a] MoU for 2.0:
  • [18b] MoU amendment for 2.1:
  • [19] August 2009 WG f2f minutes: