Meeting Minutes for OASIS SDD, 2008 by HC111208194242

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 29

									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.

1. Minutes for 4/03/2008 are approved as posted without comment or objection.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Minutes for 3/27/2008 are approved as posted without comment or objection.

6. 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.)

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

								
To top