FTSD-F2F-20100118
FTSD - Face to Face - January 18, 2010
Agenda
- Project Scope – Glossary and Doc Registry Project
- SOA Ontology
- IC and Vocabulary – Binding Syntax
- SAEAF SMART Task Definitions
- I&C Inquiry
- Conference Call Schedule
- Work Group Health Review
- Vocabulary Topics
- Other Business
Attendance
- Frank Oemig
- Bev Knight
- Ted Klein
- Heather Grain
- Ioana Singereau
- Ken Rubin
- Robert Snelick
- Tony Julian
- Sandy Stuart
- Mark Shafarman
- Dale Nelson
- Paul Knapp
- Jason Rock
- Jean Duteau
- Rene Spronk
- Mead Walker
- Mike Davis
- Ann Wrightson
- Galen Mulrooney
- Bernd Blobel
- Jobst Landgreve
- Peter Hendler
Notes
Scope statements that had not been considered: Glossary, Binding Syntax. Consider them at the first conference call.
SOA Ontology. How do you discover Services? Look at the problem space, look at existing ontologies. Come out with an action plan. Group would like to see if other groups are interested. The project scope statement will be forthcoming, and will be considered at an early conference call.
SMART – Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, timely – a way to evaluate and put forward tasks. The group should be able to see where the things it works with fit into the SAEAF framework – forthcoming over the next few weeks. Plan to offer the RIM as one of these projects. The alpha projects have started to show how SAEAF can be used. Next step is to identify what needs to be done to roll out an enterprise architecture. “starts making it real” MnM is undertaking to do this with the RIM – it is expected that the primary role would be to add governance stuff. Dale suggests we try not to proliferate acronyms. One question is how are the SMART projects different from the alpha projects? One aspect of this is to go committee by committee to see what they need to do as part of an early rollout. A request was put forward to have documentation of what the goal of these SMART projects are, and to have SAEAF at a level of maturity where it can be worked against – the best would be to have a document proposed for ballot.
Implementation and Conformance Committee issue. The group thinks it is ineffective – has not got recommendations out to other work groups – have not had attendance. Would allow I&C projects in other committees to be cancelled so they can be worked on in this committee projects in structured documents, template, ARB. This is the second meeting where they have discussed dissolving their working group. Did approach structured documents. Did approach marketing, did approach ARB. The usual response is that the groups did get approved projects. The committee feels that the other groups are doing work within their mission. Charlie McKay recalls the discussion of the marketing registry of implementations – he feels that the discussion suggested that there be joint responsibility. There was supposed to be joint work – but I&C feel s there was no real collaboration. RCRIM also is coming up with a project to explain how to bind vocabularies with specific implementations. Charlie: The SAEAF is by design overlapping with the work of existing committees – but implementing it, is the job of the committee on the ground, i.e., I&C. Regarding the SAEAF, the committee sent comments in June, and just got responses last week. They have asked for representation to discuss their issues, but have not been able to get anyone from ARB to talk to them. – Comment, this is consistent with the way that others feel. A comment – it sounds like projects that involve overlap with other committees are being approved without proper attention. On the other hand, it seems the overlap was recognized, but the implementation of the projects has not followed through with the suggested cooperation. Suggestion that the Steering Division attempt to resolve the issues – perhaps the chairs can communicate with the committee in question.
Regarding relationship with the ARB, the I&C committee feels that its input has not been considered, and that it is being ignored. ARB members present agree to take the issue back to the ARB.
Resolved that the steering division adopt a formal issue tracking process. Seconded. Request that the motion be amended to establish a Gforge project to do the issue tracking on the site. Ken hopes such a process be visible and accessible. Mark notes that we have the project tracking system, should that not be part of project tracking. He hopes that issues not be listed twice. The motion is carried. The material published by the ARB includes the ECCF and the Behavioral Framework (minus 3 diagrams). Note, the feeling is that it has not been officially released via the ARB formal process. The request is made that when the SAEAF documents are released, that the chairs of the steering division provide information to the steering division on the release, and that the date by which responses are to be received is included also. Moved and seconded.
Move that the ARB and TSC be asked to hold a formal review of the documents when they are made available. (The motion was seconded. It passed with 1 negative and 3 abstentions. ) The question is raised that previously, comments that were received were not responded to directly, so that the commenters did not know how their comments were received. Dale feel s that the discussions on the documents were discussed in an open forum – he feels the ARB will react with the perception that formal consideration of comments will greatly delay the adoption of the material. Jobst does not feel he can agree to anything unless he has the opportunity to respond , and to hear how his comments are responded to. Comment – this is foundational stuff that must be used and followed, therefore they should be reviewed. Jason notes that the I&C committee feels its comments were rejected without response. They would like to have a discussion with the ARB, and to have representation from that body.
Note, the I&C committee’s concern is that the structured document WG is developing best practices for implementation guides without consultation with I&C Conference calls: Have been meeting alternate Tuesdays at noon Eastern. The next call would be next Tuesday. Should that be delayed a week? We will start on Feb 2nd.
Work Group Health Review: A discussion of the relative worth of the measure. Suggest, it will be useful to note the reason for gaps on the matrix. But, maybe this is an activity not worth doing. We should take the measures as an attempt to establish what good practices are – this will be an ongoing practice. Suggestion, the topic deserves more discussion on a conference call.
I&C will send a list of projects it feels overlap with it to the list.
