Carl,
That
may be helpful, but it should be consistent with CIM (from DMTF) unless there is
a good reason not to be.
Fred
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:58
PM
To: Thomas, Darrel
Cc:
; ; Cummins,
Fred A; Robin Basham
Subject: Re: [dcml-frame] RE: [dcml-appserv]
RE: [dcml-frame] REMINDER: Comments on the DCML charter due by EOB
Tomorrow
Thomas, Fred, et al :
Please be aware that I am currently developing
ITSMO an IT Service Management Ontology declared / defined in
OWL
Carl Mattocks
Consultant : ITIL Application Knowledge
Management
MetLife 732 893 4170
'Always look on the bright side of
life' Monty Python
'
src="gif00000.gif" width=16>"Thomas, Darrel"
<>
"Thomas, Darrel"
<>
02/10/2006 03:22 PM
To:
"Robin Basham" <>,
"Cummins, Fred A" <>,
,
cc:
Subject: [dcml-frame] RE:
[dcml-appserv] RE: [dcml-frame] REMINDER: Comments on the DCML charter
due by EOB Tomorrow
We'd better get these comments into the purview of the
Framework group
as well, to be sure we all agree before we put to vote. I'm
still
unsure if we don't create scope creep at this point with the vision
of
multiple framework mapping, even though I know what Robin means.
We
should mean that DCML can evolve along the evolutionary lines of
Process
Frameworks, so as to not limit its effectiveness when the next one
comes
along. However, immediately we should set goals along
immediate
framework comprehension as it makes sense in the IT Services
Management
domains...
Make sense?
jDT
-----Original
Message-----
From: Robin Basham [mailto:]
Sent:
Friday, February 10, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Cummins, Fred A
Cc:
Subject: [dcml-appserv] 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
>~
>
>
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for
the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the
information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this
message.
