Groups - DRAFT-02-28-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee(2).odt uploaded

Submitter's message
Please review these minutes from the February 28th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee for approval at our meeting next week, subject to any specified changes. Thanks.

--
Jeff Waters
Document Name :  DRAFT-02-28-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee(2).odt
Description
At the February 28th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework  subcommittee, the members discussed the following topics:

 1.  TOPIC EMFW-21: Should we leave confidentiality, senderRole and  recipentRole without default lists?
(Answer: For senderRole and  recipientRole, the resolution was to add a sentence or two to the  specification to reference NIEM and ICS as examples of sender and recipient  roles for guidance, but do not add them in as defaults for senderRole and  recipientRole. The DE shouldn't endorse a particular list when there are  many being considered by the community. For confidentiality, the resolution  was to change the schema and the specification to provide a two value  default: classified and unclassified. This will motivate further  consideration by users for their choice of lists.)

 2.  TOPIC EMFW-20: Should the DE specification attempt to enforce the  preservation of XML comments?
(Answer: The DE specification is  appropriately silent on the use of XML comments. As with traditional XML  usage, comments can be used but preservation of comments is not an XML  requirement. For example, some parsers and applications of signature usage  do not preserve comments.  Also the use of comments for substantive  purposes is non-standard and should be discouraged.)

 3. TOPIC EMFW-19: Should the DE specification require that order of  elements be preserved beyond what is enforceable by XML schema validation?
(Answer: No. Order of elements is required by XML Schema for certain  elements, such as sequence, however it is not required by other elements,  such as elements which can repeat by specifying cardinality.  It would  impose too much of a non-standard burden on parsers and systems to attempt  to preserve order beyond what XML Schema specifies. Also relying on order  for meaning is better handled by adding additional elements or attributes.)

  4. TOPIC EMFW-18: Should the DE 2.0 data dictionary in the specification be  revised to clarify the use of defaults?
(Answer: Yes. First,  StatusKindDefault and StatusKindValueList were left out of the data  dictionary unintentionally, so those should be added. Second, to better  explain defaults, a section 1.3.4 ?Value Lists and Defaults? will be added  to the specification with two paragraphs, one explaining Value Lists and  their benefits and the other explaining how defaults work. )
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link
Submitter : Jeff Waters
Group : EM Infrastructure Framework SC
Folder : Resources
Date submitted : 2012-02-28 10:11:49