Subject: Draft minutes TAB meeting May 6, 2016

=============================================================

Minutes TAB call (May 6, 2016)

=============================================================

Info

Time: 2pmET

Dial:

Host confcall: OASIS

US Toll Free: +1 641 715-3822

Chat room: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/tab

Agenda

1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes

4) Status of public reviews

5) Status of open action items

6) Continue discussing how to 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'

7) Start thinking about projects we would be interested in doing in 2016/2017

8) AOB

Minutes

1) Roll call
Attending: Ashok, Chet, Jacques, Kevin, Patrick

2) Approval of agenda

Added new item #6 to discuss self-certification

Added new item #7 to discuss conformance clauses and mailing list

No further discussion of agenda. No objections to unanimous approval. Agenda as amended approved.

3) Approval of minutes
April 22nd - https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201605/msg00000.html

No discussion of minutes. No objections to unanimous approval. Minutes approved.

4) Status of public reviews

Reviews currently open:

- Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.0, ends May 5th
- UBL Naming and Design Rules Version 3.0, ends May 5th
- Business Document Envelope (BDE) Version 1.1, ends May 20th

Jacques notes I published the wrong ending date for Business Document Naming and Design Rules but he did get comments in.

Patrick suggests I send reminders as deadlines on reviews approach.

Upcoming public reviews for KMIP Profiles and KMIP Test Cases.

5) Status of open action items

* Chet - contact Carol Geyer about adding citation lists to Policies & Guidelines page.
Leave open for now.

* TAB - review proposed edits and new text of conformance clause document
Ongoing.

* Chet - draft summary of continuous PR idea
Chet sent draft to mailing list. Item can be closed.

Jacques asked about the Open Standards Cup. Chet to follow up with Carol.

6) Status of self-certification

Ashok asked if there has been any more done on this. Chet said that it has just been delayed by competing priorities.

Jacques suggested that we look at how the Open Group does this as an example of how it could be done. Suggests we consider TOSCA as a first TC we can work with to set up and debug this process. The TC is well positioned and well qualified to do test suits and they are ramping up on testing now. They'll probably have some test suites by the end of this year. Chet asked Jacques to sound out the TC on their interest.

7) Status of conformance clause document

Chet has taken the currently posted Conformance Clause document and posted it as a Google Doc. All the edits from Jacques' most recent draft are being transferred to that document.

Discussion about the importance of the definition of 'implementation' particularly for non-machine processable specifications.

Jacques also reminded us that he'd drafted a new section on parameterized conformance clauses.

Patrick noted that editors need to think about conformance clauses before they start writing the spec. Writing the document and then bolting on conformance clauses afterwards is causing a lot of the problems we're seeing. The first thing people should think about when writing a spec is what will be the implementations. Also the addressability of normative content is important. Ideally you'd have an ID to each normative statement

Chet agreed to draft a first pass at "How to write conformance clauses" and send it to the group.

8) Continue discussion on how to 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'

Discussion about how process might work if specification was developed in github and feedback could be offered at any time and fixes could be posted quickly. Noted that the W3C is experimenting with this approach.

Ashok suggested that we add this to our work items for 2016 / 2017.

We didn't have time to continue so we tabled discussion of 2016/2017 work plan.

No other business being raised, the meeting was adjourned.

Next meeting will be Friday, May 20th at 2:00 EDT.

Minutes respectfully submitted on 18 May by Chet Ensign.

Chat log

Chet: I may be a few minutes late. I'm on another call
anonymous morphed into Ashok
Kevin Mangold (NIST): I have to run down the hall really quick but I'm dialed in.
Chet: Agenda:
Chet: 1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes
April 22nd - https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201605/msg00000.html

4) Status of public reviews

- Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.0, ends May 5th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/public-review-for-business-document-naming-and-design-rules-v1-0-from-the-ubl-tc-)

- UBL Naming and Design Rules Version 3.0, ends May 5th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-ubl-naming-and-design-rules-v3-0-from-ubl-tc-ends-may-5t)

- Business Document Envelope (BDE) Version 1.1, ends May 20th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-business-document-envelope-v1-1-ends-may-20th)

5) Status of open action items

* Chet - contact Carol Geyer about adding citation lists to Policies & Guidelines page.
Leave open for now.

* TAB - review proposed edits and new text of conformance clause document
Ongoing.

* Chet - draft summary of continuous PR idea
New

6) Continue discussing how to 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'

7) Start thinking about projects we would be interested in doing in 2016/2017

Chet: Sorry - almost off the phone
Chet: Attending: all
Chet: Agenda:
Chet: Ashok - waht happend to self cert
Chet: Make that new item #6
Chet: J: update to conf clause guidelines and mailing list
Chet: new item #7
Chet: agenda appv'd
Chet: minutes
Chet: minutes approved
Chet: public reviews
Chet: Jacque provided feedback - I gave the wrong date for closing - but he did just get it in
Chet: SORRY!
Chet: https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-business-document-envelope-v1-1-ends-may-20th
Patrick: https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-business-document-envelope-v1-1-ends-may-20th
Chet: Please send reminders to TAB of upcoming end dates
Chet: P: if we change our public review process so that we are giving comments before PR deadlines
Chet: action
Chet: * Chet - draft summary of continuous PR idea
can close
Chet: Jacques - what about the Standards Cup?
Chet: I'll ask Carol
Chet: 6) Self cert status
Chet: A: where does this stand? C: it is on hold at the moment but a friend contacted me about outsourcing.
Chet: J: look at the open group as an example or possible group
Chet: J: we should look for a test group as a starter
Chet: J: TOSCA might be an example
Chet: J: The TC might be interested - they are well positioned and well qualified. Just ramping up for some testing now.
Chet: J: they'll probably have some test suites by the end of this year
Chet: J: so by 2017 may be in a point to talk about certification
Chet: J: believe that the self-cert initiative has to piggy back on a pilot project like this - something that will let us debug it and do it right
Chet: 7) Conformance clause document
Chet: Chet - I am making the updates from J's latest version to this google doc
Chet: J: 3 important key parts
Chet: - proposed definition for implementation
Chet: -- especially for non-machine processable spec - the implementation is not just the definition of a process but also the execution of the process - please look at that
Chet: - the edits to the proposed updates from Patrick on non-machine processable considerations
Chet: - 3rd, a new section on parameterized conformance clauses
Chet: -- this spells out how to do what we have been seeing with conf clauses that can cover multiple cases depending on some parameter
Chet: -- please look at that new section
Chet: -- this came up with the OSLC Promcode spec - they had precisely this issue
Chet: Ashok - isn't that already there?
Chet: Patrick: glad you mentioned the order people are doing it. to write the spec and *then* bolt on the conformance clauses is actually what is causing a lot of the problems we're seeing.
Chet: Patrick: you need to write the spec with the conformance clauses in mind - e.g. so you'll know what you need to call out in a conf clause
Chet: P: #1 with a bullet - you have to decide what's going to be required for your conformance clauses before you start writing.
Chet: P: working through something like that would be a good idea
Chet: J: to make this more concrete - the very first thing people should think of when writing a spec is the implementations - what are the typical implementations (that are going to become the conformance targets)
Chet: J: we see the ambiguity in the definition of the implementation in specs
Chet: J: what is obvious in the mind of the spec editors may not be obvious to the readers
Chet: J: e.g. for TOSCA - had to go back to the editors and get that clearly documented
Chet: J: also the addressability of normative content is important - ideally you'd have an ID to each normative statement
Chet: J: and Normative statements must refer to an implementation
Chet: AI to Chet to draft a first pass at "How to write conformance clauses" section
Chet: J: normative content should be able to trace to an implementation type
Chet: Continue discussing how to 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'
jacques (Fujitsu): Chet: W3C is also moving toward managing their specs in GitHub. SOmething to check. Under heavy pressure from their armies of geeks to do so.
jacques (Fujitsu): ... in fact, the chair for the "interop" (testing) SC in TOSCA that I am helping, has created a GitHub account to host Test Assertions definitions and evolve them.
Chet: Ashok: Let's make this an idea for a new work item
Chet: I will add this to the candidate work items for 2016/2017 and also explain a bit more about the questions staff is pondering so we can consider those as well
Sent transcript to: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org

20160506 (last edited 2016-05-18 21:32:51 by chet.ensign)