The issues in question are:
http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/WSCALENDAR-459 http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/WSCALENDAR-420 I suggest we revisit these in the Friday call. Moving the randomization thing to EI seemed OK to me at the time since I am on that committee as well. After reviewing the original request, there is a much bigger picture here. There was a simple solution proposed in the original issue. I totally missed end time issue and should have caught it in the document anyway. The CIM supports intervals as both duration and start/end times. See below. The suggested language in the original issue seems to easily resolve this. Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions Mobile : +1.321.258.6500
bbartell@xtensible.net www.xtensible.net From: Jamie Clark [mailto:
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:22 PM To:
ws-calendar@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Laurent Liscia; Chet Ensign Subject: [ws-calendar] SGIP feedback on WS-Calendar We're continuing to get significant negative feedback at the management level about the fit between WS-Calendar, in the shape it's being finalized, and the perceived technical needs of the SGIP standards set into which it's being offered. The issues, which sometimes have degenerated to impolite correspondence, seem to swirl mostly around end-time and the randomization flag. Though, really, my guess is that this is a subset of the larger set of issues recently JIRA'd by Aaron Snyder, one of the SGIP technical champions for this topic area. It's possible that not all of the latter JIRA tickets are actionable, but -- whatever their technical merit -- SGIP staff's impression that they are not being addressed will be a significant obstacle to approval of the standard by the SGIP. I'd like to attend your meeting scheduled for this Friday and gain a better understanding of whether the disconnect here is deliberate. The OASIS TC unqualifiedly has the right to adopt whatever final work product your voting majority chooses. If it's going to be immediately unacceptable to the utilities who are an intended user, though, that would be enough of a disappointment to the various SGIP stakeholders (FERC, NIST and the White House, in the US), that we'd like to see that coming well in advance, and understand why. Regards Jamie Clark James Bryce Clark, General Counsel OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark www.identi.ca/JamieXML www.twitter.com/JamieXML http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml http://facebook.com/oasis.open