[wg11] Part 28 meeting minutes and status

[Heidi L Preston]

Attached are notes from yesterday's conference call, and a summary of the
Part 28 requirements to date.  Our agenda for yesterday was to discuss the
SIMPLE BINDING for Part 28.  This included discussions of Martin's
requirements for AP bindings, and these notes focus on discrepancies
between Martin's requirements and the simple binding that can currently be
derived from the Part 28 document.

(See attached file: P28_conference_7_19_04.doc)

The next call will be on Thursday July 29.  The agenda will be to discuss
Part 28 configurability.

The approach for the next teleconference and the ballot resolution meeting
needs to have a focus on making modifications and necessary changes in the
context of the current Part 28 draft document.  The past few calls have
involved a lot of brainstorming of user requirements, but we need to focus
on working those requirements into the existing document.  All of the
requirements I have heard to date seem to suggest the need for a basic,
simple, understandable bare-bones mapping with the option to configure as
desired.  This directive has not changed drastically from the original
scope of edition 2, although it will require a significant amount of
editing to get the document in an acceptable format.

I do not support the idea of a separate Part 29 to address specific
requirements for the AP binding.  Each individual community has their own
requirements for what the "XML representation of EXPRESS schemas and data"
should look like, which is why the group took the configurability approach
originally.  To suggest that each individual community would go off and
write its own standard, and then expect the Part 28 team after the fact to
re-construct a document to pull it all together (as suggested yesterday) is
unreasonable.

A simple binding suggested by the AP binding requirements is very close to
the default of Part 28 (minus type safety).  I plan to continue with the
approach of defining the three major requirements outlined in the above
document, and making sure that each community's requirements can be met
through a combination of a "simple" binding and the appropriate
configurations.  If anyone feels that their requirements cannot be met by
those outlined above, I would welcome clarification.  So far I have not
heard any concrete requirements that could not be addressed by a
combination of a simple mapping, type safety, and configurations.  As a
reminder, this is all preliminary "homework" to help us prepare to more
efficiently address the comments we are likely to see at the August WG11
ballot resolution meeting.

Regards,
Heidi
***************************************************************************
Heidi Preston
Electric Boat Corporation
75 Eastern Point Road
Groton, CT 06340
(860) 433-8649
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: P28_conference_7_19_04.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.steptools.com/pipermail/wg11/attachments/20040720/e23dd81b/P28_conference_7_19_04.doc