Minutes of Conference Call on 19th March 2010. Approved at meeting on 2nd April 2010.

1. Intro

Roll: Jacques, Mary, Martin. Regrets from Patrick

Agenda: approved as posted.

2. Minutes

5th March 2010: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab-internal/email/archives/201003/msg00009.html

Approved, w/o. Agreed to post to wiki.

3. Action Items

ACTION-20091211-2: Patrick to prepare a wiki page for citation check list/best practice. Ongoing

4. Standards Dependency update

No update as Patrick not here.

5. Interop Policy Update

Definitions complete, and some missing sections (e.g. test reports)

One extreme is a prescribe a detailed test report template, another extreme is a minimal report. If the goal is to finish in this TAB cycle (end July) then we can be less prescriptive, and aim for stepping stones.

6. Mojave Update

Martin reported that in his mind the current Mojave use cases are too fine grained to be real use cases, with each use case only involving one actor. UML use cases can have multiple actors and describe all the workflow to achieve a task. For example, Mojave has a use case for each actor for the task "member requests to join a TC", but the problem is collecting these together to ensure the workflow is complete. A complete use case will collect all the actor views together into one. There was agreement in the TAB that multi-actor use cases are essential, and recognize that the current use cases are the decompositions of these.

Another observation is that the use cases seem to just mimic kavi, only fixing the areas where kavi is deficient. If one were to go about building a system to support OASIS, then one would start by modelling the OASIS business. However the TAB recognizes that an understaffed team cannot possibly produce such a system within reasonable deadlines and to the quality required, and that mimicking kavi was the only via option available.

Maybe the fundamental issue is to re-analyse the OASIS model. As it stands it is aimed at a TC self-serve model with minimal TC-admin intervention, which requires a much more sophisticated system, than a staff served process such as OMG/W3C (for example).

For example, what do we really want TCs to be able to do for themselves to publish a cd/cs/os, what staff involvement do we want etc.

Mary: there has been various scenarios outlined, all of which point to different business models, and have different implications on staffing levels.

Definitely a missed opportunity at the start off the project to have some basic collective understanding of business process/use case modelling. Experts are certainly around in member companies, and even within the TAB!

Is there a way to bring this expertise to the project?

Will need to discuss with Scott when he is back from vacation.

On the Mojave call later ask for an update on what has been achieved since last report.

7. AOB

None

Meeting adjourned.


Summary of New and Outstanding Action Items:

ACTION-20091211-2: Patrick to prepare a wiki page for citation check list/best practice.

Mar1910 (last edited 2010-04-02 16:26:35 by martin.chapman)