Please review these minutes of the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee of
Sep 7, 2010 for approval at our upcoming meeting tomorrow, subject to any
specified changes. Thanks.
-- Jeff Waters
The document named DRAFT-09-07-10-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.doc
(DRAFT-09-07-10-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.doc) has been submitted by Jeff
Waters to the EM Infrastructure Framework SC document repository.
Document Description:
At todays meeting, the group reviewed and discussed the following edits as
specified by item number (column A) in the DE Issues spreadsheet, version 5
:
Items Covered from Issues List:
1.ITEM (4) Revisited: Clarifying default namespaces -- Should all payload
XML be validatable and what should be guidance for where to put needed
namespaces? (Answer:-- Consensus remains that the payload XML should be
well-formed xml but the payload should not be required to be validatable.
In other words, snippets of xml are ok. For namespaces, its good to have
them declared at top of payload so that they are there when payload is
separated. We should do some examples and testing with whatever best
practices we recommend.
2.TOPIC: Need for Geo-Oasis:Where Who can begin work on taking old
version and editing as needed? (Answer:-- Hans will consider this and well
all assist him, if he chooses, as needed. )
3.ITEM (8) DistributionType Is the edit sufficient which changes the
DistributionType to a ValueListURI? (Answer:-- Yes, but the discussion
centered around how and where to specify default values. Consensus was that
there should be a default list and a default value from the list. The
sensor values in the current default list should be in their own separate
list. There should be a default URN registered with IANA in the schema,
with local lookup, so that the default URL is not hammered unduly. OASIS
should maintain the default URL. )
4.ITEM (9) CombinedConfidentiality Is the edit sufficient which says
CONDITIONAL, MUST be present when confidentiality is used in a content
object and then changes the type to a ValueListURI? (Answer:-- Yes, after
some discussion, the recommended consensus opinion was that this change was
approved but no default values should be specified. The discussion
centered around whether default values should be specified and whether
perhaps we should just leave this combinedConfidentiality as is. The
recommendation was that the issues and resolutions were decided at
face-2-face and we shouldn't undo those changes unless there is a really
good reason.)
View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=39322
Download Document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/39322/DRAFT-09-07-10-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.doc
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
-OASIS Open Administration