I agree. I have a model for the combination of frameworks that I will show
the group at next session. I don't see a reason to hold up the charter.
robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Robin Basham
Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] REMINDER: Comments on the DCML charter due by EOB
Tomorrow
Robin,
I'm not sure what this means. If you mean the date must
have well-defined and consistent semantics, I'm okay with
that. I'm not sure what the multiple frameworks and
standards are--that is pretty broad. If you mean that
all DCML records/messages must be consistent with the
data model, I'm okay with that, but it needs to be
stated less ambiguously ;-)
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Basham [mailto:]
>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:03 PM
>To: Cummins, Fred A
>Cc:
>Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] REMINDER: Comments on the DCML
>charter due by EOB Tomorrow
>
>On that note,
>I wanted to see a high level statement including:
>
>Ontology for the uniform representation of any framework or
>standard with result that an organization can align to
>multiple frameworks and standards as required by their
>industry and core department function.
>
>I'm not entirely sure if this is my mission, or the group mission.
>
>I wrote about this in the www.pbandsp.com/PMMR paper. The
>footnotes and comments deal with my thoughts on the subject.
>
>Regarding Sarah's comment on the share IP, this is an area of
>tremendous concern for me.
>
>Regarding the proposal from Jamie, I mentioned in the meeting
>that the changes felt appropriate to me. I don't want my
>views to hold up progress.
>I don't feel we should alter the presentation of the charter.
>
>
>Robin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:]
>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 12:52 PM
>To: Sarah Barbuscia;
>Cc:
>Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] REMINDER: Comments on the DCML
>charter due by EOB Tomorrow
>
>Sarah,
>
>The charter looks generally okay, but
>
>- the Statement of Purpose talks about a "data model" and the
>deliverables talks about a "taxonomy." It should be a data
>model, and, furthermore, it should be based on CIM or we
>should know why not. This provides consistency among the real
>deliverable(s) of this effort and others.
>
>- the "real" deliverables should be the XML document
>specifications for communication of configuration
>transactions, i.e., what documents are exchanged to support
>configuration management processes.
>
>Fred
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sarah Barbuscia [mailto:]
>>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:45 PM
>>To:
>>Cc:
>>Subject: [dcml-frame] REMINDER: Comments on the DCML charter
>due by EOB
>>Tomorrow
>>
>>
>>Reminder:
>>
>>As discussed on Tuesday's teleconference, any comments on the TC
>>charter are due to the mail list by EOD tomorrow, February 10, 2006.
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:]
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:28 PM
>>To:
>>Subject: [dcml-frame] Proposed text of charter clarification ballot
>>
>> Would you please review the attached revisions that I've
>received
>>as
>>proposed amendments to the DCML Framework TC charter.
>(There are two
>>identical documents attached here, in two formats, each
>marked to show
>>changes from the current approved text.) Among other things,
>> -- As you've discussed, these would rename the TC as the "DCML
>>Configuration Management TC."
>> -- These changes anticipate the practical equivalent of merging
>>the Apps & Services TC into this one.
>> -- New target dates should be inserted for the proposed
>clarified
>>list of deliverables.
>>
>> If adopted this would qualify as a "charter clarification" under
>>the OASIS TC Process. We can launch the ballot (as a web
>ballot on the
>>TC's
>>site) to approve it as soon as the new target dates are
>filled in, and
>>we incorporate any consensual corrections to the proposal.
>> Best regards JBC
>>
>>~ James Bryce Clark
>>~ Director, Standards Development, OASIS
>>~
>>
>>
>
