+1 I have no concerns about the content, the intellectual thrust and direction, nor the motivation of this group to build great results. But the standardisation process, including the public review process and need for tractable conformance criteria are valuable, if sometimes humbling, parts of the overall work and we shouldn’t cut corners. That said, no reason to dally Peter From: Greenaway Nigel [mailto:
Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com] Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2011 10:37 To: John Borras; Chris Parker; TGF TC List ; Colin Wallis Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF TC - MEETING PAPERS Hi All, I agree with John that excellent progress has been made. However, I do think that we still have a way to go to formulate some of the detailed material. I’m thinking particularly of the technical section (where there appear to be differing views on SOA/EA that have to be resolved) and I assume that we will at some point wish to agree a set of core technical standards. There may be other aspects that are needed to stand it up as a standard but I feel that these may take some time and effort. Regards Nig Nig Greenaway Government Division FUJITSU SERVICES Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7302 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail:
nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web:
http://uk.fujitsu.com Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. From: John Borras [mailto:
johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 February 2011 09:31 To: 'Chris Parker'; 'TGF TC List '; 'Colin Wallis' Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF TC - MEETING PAPERS Thanks Chris for this update. I agree at this point it is not worth your effort in re-cutting the documents until after we have discussed it on Thursday’s call. A lot will depend on how we see the Primer going forward, ie as a Standard or a Committee Note. If it is to be regarded as a Standard then we will have to follow a fairly prescriptive template and hence that will determine some of your points below. If we go the CN route then we should have a fair amount of freedom to cut it as we wish. I must say that I am extremely encouraged, and a little surprised, at the rate of progress we are making and how much common ground there seems to be. At the outset I thought our initial deliverable would be just a fairly high-level overview of the TGF and nothing more. And with that in mind whether we chose to go the standard or committee note route was a bit immaterial to me. However what we have now is a very rich document which a high percentage of what we might see as the full end product, and to that extent I think there is merit in actually thinking now of taking this version through the OASIS approvals procedures to OASIS Committee Spec at least if not to OASIS Standard. We have to ask ourselves what further content is required to make this stand up as an OASIS Standard and I think very little. We do need to support it with some guidance material which will be Committee Notes, but as a Spec/Standard I think it can stand on its own merits and we can provide some very practical and enforceable Conformance Clauses. I hope we can find enough time on Thursday’s call to discuss this point and reach agreement, but early views from everyone will help to save time on the call. John From: Chris Parker [mailto:
chris.parker@cstransform.com] Sent: 14 February 2011 18:07 To: John Borras; 'TGF TC List '; 'Colin Wallis' Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS TGF TC - MEETING PAPERS Please find attached a zip file with the updated TGF paper and appendices. I hope I’ve fully addressed all the comments received on the last version, although there are still some issues listed in John’s Issue Log that we ought to discuss on the call on Thursday. I haven’t though, as yet, done the restructuring suggested by Colin. I like his idea of having a “nice and tight” consolidated section which is the core standard, with relatively little discussion surrounding it. But having had a couple of plays with doing this, I think that Colin’s suggestion may not be the best way to do it. So I think it makes sense to discuss the alternatives as a group before re-cutting the material. What I would like to propose is the following. The material in the attached files sits currently at 2 levels – at the first level is the main TGF Primer in 3 parts, supported at a second level by four individual frameworks on business/customers/channels/technology as described in the appendices. Having reviewed the document in the light of Colin’s suggestion, my proposal is that we split this material into three rather than two levels, as follows: 1) The TGF Primer. This would include: - all the material in Part I of the attached main primer document (intro, context, audience etc) - an overview of the structure of the TGF (ie introducing Figure 1 for the first time) - all the “context” sections from the appendices to explain the background to the major service delivery components 2) The TGF Core Specification. This would be the “nice and tight” standard which Colin has asked for. It would: - set out all the detail of principles, CSFs and benefit realisation which is currently in Part II of the attached overview doc - also set out the “hard” part of the four appendices, ie the “overview” text and diagrams which set out the key components, plus the associated conformance criteria - end with the consolidated overview of conformance criteria which is currently in Part III of the overview doc. 3) A set of supporting appendices on business/customers/channels/technology/terminology, which would use all the material in the “Detailed Description” sections of the current appendices. This is not massively dissimilar to Colin’s suggestion. The key difference is that I am suggesting that if all the discursive material in the current appendices were moved into the first section (as I think Colin is suggesting), then this would make that document over-long. So I am suggesting that the discussion about context and background gets moved up, and that the discussion/description of each detailed component gets moved down a level into a set of annexes (level 3 in the list above). I hope this makes sense. I have a clear picture in my head of how it would work, and hope I’ve communicated it effectively! But because it’s a little different from Colin’s suggestion, and because it touches on a central issue for the TC as a whole (ie how much of all this qualifies as an OASIS specification), I thought it would be worth having a discussion on the main TC before I do the restructuring work. Regards, Chris Parker Managing Partner, CS Transform Ltd, +44 7951 754 060 From: John Borras [mailto:
johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 14 February 2011 10:38 To: 'TGF TC List '; 'Colin Wallis' Subject: [tgf] OASIS TGF TC - MEETING PAPERS Please find attached the papers for our TC call on Thursday. If anyone has any other items for inclusion on the agenda will they please let me know in advance. The dial-in details are included in the agenda file, and thanks to Steve for use of his conference facilities this time. Hopefully Chris will find time to complete a further iteration of the Primer before the meeting, if not we’ll refer to his original draft which was circulated on 6 th February. Advance notice of any absences would be appreciated please. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john