Approved Minutes 20th November 2009 (approved at 11th December 2009 meeting)

Topic: Intro/roll-call

Roll: Martin, Mary, Patrick, Jacques

Agenda: approved as posted.

Topic: Minutes

30th October 2009: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab-internal/email/archives/200910/msg00020.html

Approved w/o. No objections to posting on the WIKI

Topic: AI

none

Topic: Standards Dependency Update

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab-internal/email/archives/200910/msg00012.html

Patrick has entered some data, but not enough that is meaningful. Will keep adding and will issue in time for the next meeting.

On the Agenda next meeting.

Topic: Interop Policy Update

Outline proposal: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab-internal/email/archives/200911/msg00003.html

Jacques goes over his outline. Current Interop Demo policy should stay, but should be renamed to emphasize its marketing focus. Conformance testing does not guarantee interop. Interop testing alone does not necessarily give conformance.

Interop testing might not be the right word e.g. an odf document and an odf processor should be covered.

Need to make a distinction between conformance testing, interop testing, and demos, where demos pick some illustrative application scenarios.

We need to make sure these apply across the board of the different types of specs developed in OASIS. There could be different styles of interop testing for example.

Need to define the terms: conformance, interop, and demo (working names)

Each may be broken down into sub-steps (e.g. test assertions)

Decide at what stage in the process each is required as a minimum.

Need to outline the expected benefits: Main goal is to improve spec quality, resulting in a higher probability that conforming products work and interop the same way.

General agreement on the direction.

ACTION-20091120-1: Jacques to draft an Interop policy in the wiki, starting with a definition of terms.

Topic: AOB

Martin asked whether one TAB person per 60 day public review is enough as we used to have two TAB members allocated. Agreed one is ok.

Mary said there are quite a few spec in the Public Review queue.

Mary: as part of the mojave design, would like each TC to have a proper abstract. At the moment it is either a one liner or the whole charter. Does it makes sense to require this in the Charter. Probably makes sense to be in part 2 of the charter, since it might need tweaking before publishing. Patrick: executive summary might be a better term. General agreement on this, Mary will bring to the Board Process TC.

Next meeting 11 December 2009.


Summary of New and Open Issues

ACTION-20091120-1: Jacques to draft an Interop policy in the wiki, starting with a definition of terms.

Nov2009 (last edited 2009-12-11 16:32:14 by martin.chapman)