Meeting Minutes for OASIS SDD, 2008€¦ · Web viewPLEASE, PLEASE work on your proposals this week (see the spreadsheet posted on the TC Web page for a list of proposals and assignments)

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 08/28/2008 Meeting11:05 AM ET Roll Call

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from July 24 and August 14 (no meeting July 31, August 7 and August 21; no quorum August 14 to approve prior minutes)

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Ballot for charter updates complete; updated charter has been published.

3. v1.0 status - Specification/schema v1.0 have been submitted for OASIS General Membership vote as OASIS Standard -- VOTE COMMENCED AUG. 16 AND ENDS AUG. 31 (designated voting representative per company -- thanks to TC members for ensuring that their company's vote has been cast!). 15% of voting members required to vote for the ballot to be valid. As of Wednesday August 27, we have 25 "Yes" votes (just over half of what is needed), 0 "No" votes. PLEASE REMIND ANY VOTING MEMBERS YOU KNOW TO CAST THEIR VOTE! OASIS reminder to go out August 27.

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to you B. Proposals (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits) - Updated version representation proposal from Jason: PROPOSAL TABLED, but we will discuss the larger issue of profiles & resource models when Jason completes the exercise he is pursuing in this area. - Updated Pattern proposal from Randy: proposal direction was approved by TC; need final updates, including spec changes, to formally approve/adopt the proposal. - Updated Interop proposal from Julia

COMPLETED PROPOSALS (for reference): - Charter update proposal from Brent: Complete? (based on ballot results)

C. Discussion - How should the TC proceed in the near term? Do we need an in-person meeting? If so, when and where? Any companies willing to host? Should we "take a break" for a specified period of time, or meet less frequently, to allow various parties to gain implementation experience with SDD and provide feedback? Should we continue the status quo? Are there other alternatives? - Continue OVF discussion (as time permits)

5. Old/new business - Brent has action item to schedule discussion with OVF Working Group - Brent has action item to schedule discussion with OASIS SCA-Assembly TC (request sent to SCA-Assembly co-chairs 08/21; no reply yet)

** Adjourn 12:00 Noon US Eastern time

MINUTES

(Julia absent; Brent recorded minutes).

We have a quorum.

1. Minutes from July 24 and August 7 approved without objection.2. Administrative:

a. Charter updates are now complete and published.b. Julia will be out for several weeks; Brent asks for volunteers to serve as

interim secretary in Julia’s absence (to ensure that we have backup for administrative access on TC Web page). Merri volunteers and is approved unanimously (Brent will update Merri’s role on the Web page and schedule a brief overview of the Web administrative functions with Merri).

3. v1.0 status remains as noted in agenda. Call for action to contact those who haven’t voted (Brent is in process of doing so).

4. v1.1 items:a. PLEASE, PLEASE begin work on proposals assigned to you and let Brent

know when you expect to have something to bring to the TC. We will be out of proposals to work on soon.

b. Proposal discussion today:i. Regarding Profile/Resource Model, Jason notes that his

investigation thus far has led him to conclude that the Profile as we did in for v1.0 (with a namespace and schema derived from a resource model) wasn’t the best approach. He believes that it’s not really useful, and doesn’t really sufficiently address interoperability issues and instead that we would be better off directly using a resource model. Jason is moving in the direction of proposing to discard the Profile as we currently know it and replace the schema “contract” with an explicit declaration of supported resource model (e.g., CIM) and which portions of that resource model are supported (expanding the resource model if necessary using defined extensions mechanisms for that resource model). Howard asks, if we discard the profile, how do we test interoperability? Jason notes that we would still declare support in terms of a resource model, so the “contract” would still exist, and that actual interoperability details and testability issues exist with either approach, so the planned proposal doesn’t affect that (that is, interoperability testing remains an item to address but is not a side effect of the proposal Jason plans). Agreed that we need to split our “interoperability” work item into smaller, concrete chunks (such as interoperability testing) and address those in the TC regardless of the direction taken for the Profile.

ii. Pattern proposal: No update this week; status remains that TC approved this proposal in principle by acclamation; Randy will fill in remaining details (primarily specification updates) and bring the final proposal back next week for formal adoption.

iii. No updates on interop proposal this week.iv. Charter proposal: Now complete!

c. OVF discussion: Brent notes that joint discussion with OVF working group is possible and recommends that we pursue this after OVF 1.1 is available (estimate October). Brent has action item to schedule this.

5. Old/new business

a. Joint discussion with SCA-Assembly TC (whose charter notes that they will consider leveraging SDD): Brent has contacted the SCA-Assembly TC co-chairs requesting a meeting with that TC to review/provide education on SDD. No response to that request yet.

b. Discussion of future meetings: Are weekly calls still the right mode of operation? Should we suspend regular calls for a time, have less frequent calls, or something else? Resolved that the current mode of weekly calls is preferred; Chris noted that he favors this and Jason notes that he would prefer to continue the status quo at least for now and move to less frequent calls if we determine that’s merited; he is hesitant to suspend calls for any period of time. Merri notes that we could establish target dates for our work items to help keep the work moving; agreed to do this next week. TC consensus is to proceed with the same mode of operation. Brent notes that it is important to not miss two consecutive weekly calls if the member wishes to maintain voting rights.

c. PLEASE, PLEASE work on your proposals this week (see the spreadsheet posted on the TC Web page for a list of proposals and assignments) so that we can continue forward progress in future meetings. Agreed that at next week’s meeting, we will review the current list of work items and establish target dates.

Adjourned 11:35 US eastern time.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 08/14/2008 MeetingAgenda:11:05 AM ET Roll Call

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from July 24 (no meeting July 31 or August 7)

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Ballot open to approve charter updates (9 of 10 have currently voted yes; ballot closes August 16)

3. v1.0 status - Specification/schema v1.0 to be submitted for OASIS General Membership vote as OASIS Standard -- Mary McRae issued the announcement Notice August 2; VOTE COMMENCES AUG. 16 AND ENDS AUG. 31 (designated voting representative per company -- PLEASE ALERT YOUR COMPANY VOTING REPRESENTATIVE).

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to you B. Proposals (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits) - Updated version representation proposal from Jason: PROPOSAL TABLED, but we will discuss the larger issue of profiles & resource models identified by this proposal (Julia/Jason have produced a list of SDD "expectations" of profiles/resource models, which was reviewed previously) - Updated Pattern proposal from Randy: proposal direction was approved by TC; need final updates, including spec changes, to formally approve/adopt the proposal. - Updated Interop proposal from Julia - Charter update proposal from Brent: this was approved by the TC; it requires a formal approval by electronic ballot (with a Special Majority). Mary McRae from OASIS will set up the ballot; look for notification and please vote. - any others?

C. Discussion -- Continue OVF discussion (as time permits)

5. Old/new business

** Adjourn 12:00 noon US Eastern Time

MINUTES


We do not have a quorum.

6. Minutes from July 24 approval deferred to next meeting based on lack of quorum.7. Administrative: Welcome Mark McCraw from SAS, who is joining the TC. Mark has

experience with the Eclipse COSMOS SDD implementation.

8. v1.0 status remains as noted in agenda.9. v1.1 items:

a. PLEASE, PLEASE begin work on proposals assigned to you and let Brent know when you expect to have something to bring to the TC. We will be out of proposals to work on soon.

b. Proposal discussion today:i. Regarding Profile/Resource Model, we have agreed on the content

of the Profile/Resource Model Assumptions document, with minor updates previously posted by Brent. Jason reports that he is in the midst of an exercise to directly use a Resource Model (without a Profile) with SDD (rather than a Profile based on a Resource Model). This represents a possible change in direction in which a Profile would extend an existing Resource Model (such as CIM), using that RM’s structure and vocabulary, rather than the Profile acting as a “Proxy” for the RM. The Profile still would function as a “contract” between SDD producers and consumers, but the mechanism would be different. TC agreed to let this exercise play out and hear a report back from Jason, potentially with a new proposal, at that time.

ii. Pattern proposal: No update this week; status remains that TC approved this proposal in principle by acclamation; Randy will fill in remaining details (primarily specification updates) and bring the final proposal back next week for formal adoption.

iii. No updates on interop proposal this week.iv. Charter proposal: No update this week; assuming that open ballot

(see note in “Administrative” in agenda, above) passes, the Charter updates will be complete and published by OASIS Staff.

c. OVF discussion: Brent notes that joint discussion with OVF working group is possible and recommends that we pursue this after OVF 1.1 is available (estimate October). Jason notes some concerns with OVF beginning to address areas that SDD already addresses; Brent agrees, and this is the primary motivation for the joint discussion. Brent has action item to schedule this.

10. Old/new businessa. Joint discussion with SCA-Assembly TC (whose charter notes that they will

consider leveraging SDD): Brent has action item to set up a meeting with that TC to review/provide education on SDD.

b. PLEASE, PLEASE work on your proposals this week (see the spreadsheet posted on the TC Web page for a list of proposals and assignments) so that we can continue forward progress in future meetings.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 07/17/2008 MeetingAgenda:11:05 AM ET Roll Call

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from July 10 and July 17 meetings.

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent)

3. v1.0 status - (Same status as last week): Ballot to submit Committee Specification as a candidate for OASIS Standard passed by Special Majority, so specification/schema will be submitted for OASIS General Membership vote -- confirmed by Mary McRae; NOTICE AUG. 1; VOTE COMMENCES AUG. 16(designated voting representative per company -- PLEASE ALERT YOUR COMPANY VOTING REPRESENTATIVE).

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to you B. Proposals (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits) - Updated version representation proposal from Jason: PROPOSAL TABLED, but we will discuss the larger issue of profiles & resource models identified by this proposal (Julia/Jason to produce a list of SDD "expectations" of profiles/resource models) - Updated Pattern proposal from Randy: proposal active, but we will HEAR FROM JASON/MERRI ABOUT HOW THE COSMOS IMPLEMENTATION MIGHT USE THIS PROPOSAL before completing it - Updated Interop proposal from Julia - New Charter update proposal from Brent - any others?


5. Old/new business


MINUTES


We have a quorum.

11. Minutes from July 10 and July 17 meetings approved without objection.12. Administrative: Welcome back Quenio, with new affiliation with Acresso Software

(formerly Macrovision). Robert Dickau and Art Middlekauff have also rejoined the TC as members from Acresso.

13. v1.0 status remains as noted in agenda.14. v1.1 items:

a. PLEASE, PLEASE begin work on proposals assigned to you and let Brent know when you expect to have something to bring to the TC. We will be out of proposals to work on soon.

b. Proposal discussion today:i. We reviewed and briefly discussed the Resource Model

Assumptions document prepared by Julia and Jason. This is intended to facilitate the overall resource model/profile discussion. TC generally agrees with this document; a couple observations made resulting in minor updates to the document, which Brent will post. Deferred additional discussion on this topic.

ii. Pattern proposal: Jason confirmed that from an implementation perspective, having additional metadata is generally useful and this proposal offers that. After discussion, we determined that this should be largely independent from the Variable proposal that Howard is working on and so we can move the Pattern proposal forward. TC approved this proposal in principle by acclamation; Randy will fill in remaining details (primarily specification updates) and bring the final proposal back in 2 weeks for formal adoption.

iii. No updates on interop proposal this week.iv. Charter proposal: Brent reviewed the proposed updates. Randy

moved to adopt these; Merri seconded; approved unanimously. Brent will pursue with OASIS staff any procedural items we need to accomplish to actually update the TC’s charter with this new content.

c. OVF discussion: brief discussion; Jason notes that we need to wait for upcoming v1B OVF specification to have detailed discussion. Brent notes his own opinion that it would be good to scope OVF to “virtual image-specific” items and have OVF leverage SDD for general metadata, rather than expand OVF to cover the same space as SDD. TC generally agrees; Jason asks how we air this TC viewpoint. Brent will investigate if/how/when we can schedule a joint discussion with the OVF working group.

15. Old/new businessa. Randy asks about a joint discussion with SCA-Assembly TC (whose charter

notes that they will consider leveraging SDD). Brent to set up a meeting with that TC to review/provide education on SDD.

b. At least 3 voting members will be absent next week. TC agrees to cancel next week’s meeting. PLEASE, PLEASE work on your proposals this week (see the spreadsheet posted on the TC Web page for a list of proposals and assignments) so that we can continue forward progress when we resume meetings on August 7.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 07/17/2008 Meeting11:05 AM ET Roll Call

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from July 10 meeting


3. v1.0 status - (Same status as last week): Ballot to submit Committee Specification as a candidate for OASIS Standard passed by Special Majority, so specification/schema will be submitted for OASIS General Membership vote -- confirmed by Mary McRae; NOTICE AUG. 1; VOTE COMMENCED AUG. 16(designated voting representative per company -- PLEASE ALERT YOUR COMPANY VOTING REPRESENTATIVE).

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to you B. Proposals (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits) - Updated version representation proposal from Jason - Updated Pattern proposal from Randy - Updated Interop proposal from Julia - New Charter update proposal from Brent - any others?


5. Old/new business


MINUTES

We have a quorum.

1. Minutes were posted during the meeting. We will vote on approval next week to allow time to review.

2. Pattern Proposal revisited – updated presentation posted;Randy has identified which of the VariableExpressionType elements will be changed by this proposal and which will not. These charts show the types where the VariableExpression will be changed. Note that all places that use these types will be changed also. TC members are asked to study these new charts over the next week and come back next week prepared to discuss.We discuss again the issue of concatenating variables and fixed strings. As proposed, this would be restricted to variables. e.g. Instead of concatenating a parameter and a fixed string in an Argument, you would create a DerivedVariable that does the concatenation then use the DerivedVariable in the Argument. There are tradeoffs either way. Julia will come back with a couple of examples next

week and we will discuss the pros and cons of this approach vs. allowing the concatenation even in the newly defined variable expressions.Next week, Jason and Merri will give us a 5 minute overview of current implementation efforts relative to this particular proposal.

3. Jason asks us – What do we want the profile to be? How detailed should it get? The questions raised by version really apply to all properties. How do we keep from “boiling the ocean”? How do we avoid creating a resource model? The SDD assumes a resource model and may refer to anything in it that needs to be known during deployment. Do we really want to put a profile in the middle of this?Julia will create bulleted list of SDD spec assumptions about a resource model and pass it to Jason for additions and revisions. Then we’ll use this for the next round of discussion.

4. Standard voting process: each OASIS member (company) casts one vote. TC members – know who your voting member is and make sure they plan to vote. At least 15% of the overall voting membership must vote yes for it to become a standard. If 15% vote and no one votes no, then it is a standard. If 25% of the votes cast are no, then it fails. If 15% vote and some, but less than 25% voted no, then it goes back to the TC to determine if more work is needed. If vote fails, it can be resubmitted.

5. OVF – We need to return to this discussion soon. There is a ballot out for OVF 1B.

6. Next week: Resume 2 items from this week: (1) brief overview from Jason/Merri on use of what's in "pattern" proposal, to help refine the proposal; and (2) continue the resource model/profile discussion, hopefully with the draft info that Julia and Jason will generate. Also, look briefly at upcoming proposals – including the ones created from the interop discussion.

Minutes for OASIS SDD TC 07/10/2008 Meeting

AGENDA11:05 AM ET Roll Call

0. Elect temporary chair (Brent on vacation) and, if necessary, temporary secretary

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from June 26 meeting (no meeting July 3).


3. v1.0 status - (Same status as last week): Ballot to submit Committee Specification as a candidate for OASIS Standard passed by Special Majority, so specification/schema will be submitted for OASIS General Membership vote (designated voting representative per company -- please alert your company representative). Because we just missed the June 15 cutoff date for submission, this will go to General Membership vote in August, not July.

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to you B. Proposals (review/discuss/take action on available proposals as time permits)- New version representation proposal from Jason- Updated Pattern proposal from Randy- Updated Interop proposal from Julia- New Charter update proposal from Brent- any others?


5. Old/new business


MINUTES

We have a quorum.

Brent is not here today. Julia is elected temporary chair and Merri temporary secretary.

* Minutes from meeting on June 26, 2008 approved.* 1.0 status unchanged from last meeting* 1.1 updates # Continue to let Brent know when you have proposals to submit. # Randy's proposal:

Checked on XPath and Java regex and both were way more complicated than what we need. Howard suggests "glob" instead of "wildcard", but glob is more complicated, so he changes his mind. We just want the "*" we think. Julia wants clarification on concat of variables, Randy to find locations in the schema where he is proposing these changes be made, he's not proposing that all locations be changed, just ones where we have Name and things that need to be more than a static string. This is not a replacement for VariableExpressionType. Randy couldn't come up with a reasonable example that would require that we support negation. Julia doesn't agree with the comment associated with negation related to the test value. Lazar is concerned that this is too simple. Action Item: Randy to go through schema and bring back to the TC a list of all the places in the schema that he is proposing changing, so we can talk it through more. # Jason's version strings proposal: Really just presenting to get a feel for which direction the TC thinks we should pursue. Trying to answer the question, "How does SDD producer know what to specify so that the SDD consumer can process the version information correctly and successfully?" For example, there are three different and correct ways to get the version info for Windows XP, and all three return different information. How does the SDD consumer know which one the SDD producer intended? Generally we feel that the second suggestion in the proposal is the way that we would like to proceed. This would associate the version number string more closely with a resource that is defined in a profile. Julia suggests that we need to be able to express "the way" to determine the version, by specifying in the profile the way an app defines their version, which actually applies to all properties of resources. Basically what we are interested in doing is turning what we stated in 1.0 into something more concrete. Action Item: Jason to pursue proposal on updates to the profile.* Adjourned meeting at 11:52 AM EST.



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from June 19 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Discuss whether to meet next week (July 3; US holiday)

3. v1.0 status - Three statements of use submitted (IBM, SAS, CA -- thanks to all submitters!) - Ballot closed to submit Committee Specification as a candidate for OASIS Standard.- Ballot passed by Special Majority, so specification/schema will be submitted for OASIS General Membership vote (designated voting representative per company -- please alert your company representative). Because we just missed the June 15 cutoff date for submission, this will likely go to General Membership vote in August, not July

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to you B. Proposals -- Interop proposal from Julia (updated Pattern proposal from Randy next week); any others?C. Discussion -- Continue OVF discussion (as time permits)

5. Old/new business


MINUTES

We have a quorum.

1. Minutes from 6/19/2008 approved without comment or objection.

2. Shall we cancel next week’s meeting due to the US holiday? Yes. Next week’s meeting will be cancelled.

3. 1.0 status as is as described in the agenda

4. Please let Brent know when you can have your proposals ready for discussion.

5. Interoperability discussion – charts were posted by Julia last week.a. Add an issue to our list – “Represent version formats in the profile”.

(Owner=Jason) Target for discussion of the proposal is 2 weeks. Today’s discussion noted that it would not be desirable to do this on a per resource basis – that there are probably commonalities in real-world version formats that can be taken advantage of.

b. Artifact assumptions – we will open an issue for further discussion. Owner=Jason.

c. Custom logic – we will open an issue for further discussion. Owner=Julia.d. Mapping actual resources to resource type – we will open an issue for

further discussion. Owner=Chris (assigned in Chris’ absence since he had to drop a few minutes early). Discussion revealed current, somewhat obscured, assumption that the rules about determining when a resource is a legitimate member of the set of resources with a particular type are set by the resource model. We also noted that the resource model is not a first class entity is SDD deployment.

6. Next meeting: July 10. Agenda – updated pattern proposal from Randy; Version format proposal from Jason.


AGENDAAgenda:11:05 AM ET Roll Call

0. Elect temporary chair (Brent has a conflict today)

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from June 12 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - TC public page has been updated with latest status, pointers to latest documents

3. v1.0 status - Three statements of use submitted (IBM, SAS, CA -- thanks to all submitters!)- Ballot open to submit Committee Specification as a candidate for OASIS Standard. Please vote if you haven't- If ballot passes by Special Majority, specification/schema will be submitted for OASIS General Membership vote (designated voting representative per company -- please alert your company representative). Because we just missed the June 15 cutoff date for submission, this will likely go to General Membership vote in August, not July

4. v1.1 updates A. Please look at spreadsheet and let Brent know when you expect to have proposals for items assigned to youB. Proposals -- any for today? (updated one from Randy, new one from Julia?)C. Discussion -- any for today? (continue OVF discussion?)

5. Old/new business


MINUTES

We have a quorum.

0. Elect temporary chair: Julia will chair, Merri will scribe.

7. Minutes from 6/12/2008 approved without comment or objection.

8. Administrative – see agenda

9. v1.0 statusSubmission vote closes tomorrow. 8 out of 9 voting members have voted YES. The 9th member is Howard, who is on vacation.

10. Pattern Proposal

Changes that Randy made based on last week’s discussion: added extensible list at Howard's suggestion & added examples.

Julia (who was not here for the discussion last week) had three comments:1) We intentionally removed support for expressions that had been there in pre-submission version. We should look carefully at the implications of adding support for expressions. VariableExpressionType is used in a lot of places. (Julia does feel like adding expressions is probably the right thing to do.)2) We use concatenation of variable values with fixed strings in our examples, but this proposal doesn't seem to allow that. This is an important capability.3) Make the default be variable reference so that it matches 1.0.

Randy: For #2, Howard has a work item to address the variable expression restriction definition. Let’s wait to see what he comes up with then circle back.

A suggestion to add a second variable expression type that includes the type attribute rather than adding the attribute to elements of VariableExpressionType. It could be done either way. Compatibility with 1.0 needs to be considered. Let’s return to this question.

Julia: Remembers difficulty implementers had with variable expressions and parsing them, and wants to circle back and see what the difficulties were.

Randy: Problem was that they couldn't tell how to parse it, they had to do a char by char compare. This proposal provides a hint that makes the parsing easier.

Lazar: Asks if this is xPath expression format, not xPath - might be confusing. Suggests using the regular expressions that are already in Java.

Randy: We can have other enumerations & the names can be changed. He just came up with something this morning, they aren't set in stone, he was just giving an example of something other than what we already have. The simpler the better though, but we definitely need something like this.

Randy: Pick a spec that is common, easy to use, and simple (doesn't have to be XPath). It needs to be able to express "NOT", "OR", and have substring support. We could even define more granular patterns like "xpathNot" or "xpathOr"...

Lazar: Look at java.util.regex.pattern.

Randy to look into it.

Remaining questions:

1) Does this help? Julia to check with implementers of earlier versions to discuss problems with implementing support for expressions; also look for implications of allowing expressions.2) What pattern should we use? Randy and Lazar to look for other possible specs.3) Should default be literal or variable ref? Julia and Randy to discuss offline.4) Do we know how granular we want to make it? E.g. do we want to allow every possible type of expression or limit it to substrings or something in between? Depends on which pattern we use.

Jason: Suggests that maybe we could just not say which pattern.

Randy: We can make the enumeration extensible.

Julia: Follow up question: Are there any interoperability implications of this proposal? Is there anything we need to say to implementers about what they need to do to support this?

Jason: We could maybe put that information in the profile rather than in the spec. Volunteers to assist Randy and Lazar with modeling.

Julia: Maybe this proposal shouldn't be done separately from Howard's...

11. Interop Discussion – slides posted by Julia. No discussion held today.

12. OVF Discussion – no discussion today.



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from April 17 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - new TC member(s)

3. v1.0 status

4. v1.1 updates A. Overview/taking stock B. Proposals -- any for today? C. Discussion -- any for today?

5. Old/new business


MINUTESNote: resuming regular weekly TC calls after hiatus agreed to in April 17 meeting.

We have a quorum.

13. Minutes from 4/17/2008 approved without objection.

14. Julia is absent today; Brent will record minutes.

Welcome to new TC member Kirk Wilson from CA. Kirk works in CA Labs Research group and has participated in OASIS WSDM, WS-RF and WS-Notification standards (and others outside OASIS).

15. v1.0 Standards Submission package is nearly complete (see “Submission Package” document posted in “Standards” folder on TC documents page). We are awaiting the three statements of use; CA, IBM and SAS plan to supply these and as soon as they are posted to the TC Web page, Brent will submit the package. If we submit by June 15, that will enable general membership vote on SDD as an OASIS Standard during July. Brent will send an e-mail to the TC when the submission is made.

16. v1.1:

a. See the “v1.1 Candidate items” document posted in “Working Documents” folder of TC documents page. Please send Brent your plans/tentative schedule for proposals for any items assigned to you.

b. Proposals: Randy posted an initial discussion proposal (see “Pattern Proposal” in “Working Documents” folder of TC documents page). We

discussed this; Howard had several suggestions, including enabling more robust expressions (perhaps XPath or similar). We also determined that it would be useful to allow for various expressions, from literal string to expressions. Randy will generate a detailed proposal, including illustrative use case(s), and bring that back to a future TC call. Action (Brent): fine-tune the Proposal template, add placeholder for scenarios/use cases and clarify guidance on the identification number for the proposal (corresponds to identifier in spreadsheet).

c. Discussion: We discussed alignment with the OVF standard and agreed that it is worthwhile to pursue raising awareness of SDD and offering SDD education to the DMTF OVF working group, as it seems apparent that there might be overlap between future OVF specifications and SDD. Actions (Brent): send information about OVF to TC; develop a sketch/outline of possible SDD-OVF overlaps/synergy opportunities; contact chair of DMTF OVF working group to determine if some sort of joint discussion between that group and SDD TC is possible and desired.

17. No old or new business. Meeting adjourned approximately 11:45 US Eastern Time.





3. Standardization and document/publication status A. Specification: initial submission complet for publication and Committee Specification vote BUT the approved version needs to be updated to "cd04" status; in workB. Primer: submitted for publication (cross-references will need to be updated after specification reaches CS status)C. Starter Profile Material: submitted for publication (cross-references will need to be updated after specification reaches CS status) D. Examples: submitted for publication (cross-references will need to be updated after specification reaches CS status)

4. Remaining work - Version 1.1: Develop action plan to address the items that were prioritized last week.

5. Old/new business


MINUTESWe do not have a quorum at the start of the meeting. We achieve quorum at 10 after.

18. Minutes from 4/10/2008.

19. Brent has no new news on future participation of our former Macrovision reps.

20. Brent submitted the specification to the OASIS staff last week – whereupon we were told that the name and status of the document needed to be CD04 (Committee Draft 04) not PR1-R01 (Public Review 1 – revision 1). Brent made all the changes and resubmitted. The official TC vote on the standard will begin soon. Vote will be run by the OASIS staff. 2/3 of voting members must vote YES for this vote to pass. An Abstain vote reduces the total number against which the 2/3 majority is calculated.

21. The expository documents have been sent to Mary McRae to publish on docs.oasis-open.org and should appear there very soon.

22. 1.1 issues – it is time to assign owners to issues. We are not making commitments to dates yet. An updated version of the 1.1 issues list that includes the priorities we assigned last week has been posted by Brent. A new version of the document that includes assignments will be posted after this meeting by Brent. Only items that someone volunteered for will have owners. We made it through the medium and high priority items and most have owners assigned. We agreed to add a new worksheet to our issues spreadsheet as a place to collect issues that come from the COSMOS SDD runtime work and other implementation efforts. We also moved the three profile-related items over to that worksheet.

23. We voted to take a break from our weekly meetings to allow time to prepare proposals and since several people will be out during the next month. Our next meeting will be June 5th. Jason, Julia and Randy all plan to have proposals ready to discuss at that time.





3. Standardization and document/publication status A. Specification: "Housekeeping" updates complete; ready to submit for publication and Committee Specification voteB. Primer: Minor updates for publication ("housekeeping" + example updates to match new examples) complete; ready to submit for publicationC. Starter Profile Material: Minor updates for publication (RDDL, "housekeeping") complete; ready to submit for publicationD. Examples: minor updates for publication (to match starter profile updates) complete; ready to submit for publication

4. Remaining work - Version 1.1: Continue discussion of items to address and prioritize those items.

5. Old/new business


MINUTESWe have a quorum.

24. Minutes for 4/03/2008 are approved as posted without comment or objection.

25. Administrative: Brent has some new information about how the Macrovision changes have affected Quenio’s and Robert’s participation. What he has learned is that Macrovision is the OASIS member, but that Quenio and Robert are now employees of Acresso. They are pursuing membership and we hope to welcome them back sometime soon.

26. Standardization and document/publication status: Document updates, link updates, references, etc. have been made in the specification. Brent has posted these updates. Housekeeping changes are the only changes in the specification. Brent will submit the specification to OASIS today. The primer and profile docs housekeeping changes are almost completed. When Brent receives them, they will also be posted and submitted to OASIS.

27. Remaining work – 1.1 Issues Prioritization – Brent has posted a spreadsheetBrent will update the spreadsheet as we discuss the items so the main results of todays discussion can be seen by looking at the update to the issues spreadsheet

that Brent will post after the meeting. Only issues will be recorded in the minutes. Our first pass approach will be to give each item the highest priority assigned to it by any member company. High priority means we MUST have a disposition of the item before shipping 1.1; Medium priority means we should have a disposition; Low priority means we’ll address it if we get to it. We made it through all items in the spreadsheet without the need to record any issues. TC MEMBERS: Please take a look at the new issue priorities and identify the proposals you are prepared to create or discussions you would like to lead. We will assign owners to issues next week.



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 27 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Review ballot results (2)

3. Standardization and document/publication statusA. Primer: Need minor updates for publication ("housekeeping" + example updates to match new examples). B. Starter Profile Material: Approval ballot passed; working on updates for publication (RDDL, "housekeeping")C. Examples: minor updates made for publication (to match starter profile updates).

4. Remaining work - Version 1.1: Initiate discussion of items to address and prioritize those items. Brent will post an updated list of candidate items with mapping of items to supporting use cases.

5. Old/new business




29. Administrative: a. The examples and profile ballots passed with a couple of minor comments.

This means all our expository documents are ready to be published – after minor updates of links. Merri has the pen for those updates.

b. Dell has decided to discontinue their association with OASIS so Tom Studwell and John Zhang are no longer members of the committee. We will miss their valuable contributions.

c. The Macrovision transition has completed. Brent will be finding out if there will be continued participation from Quenio and Robert. (We miss them.)

30. We briefly review the 1.1 Issues Spread sheet was posted by Brent.a. Howard notes that A2 is not alignment with another standard even though

it is in the alignment section, and that it should be simple to accomplish. Brent notes that it is still a sort of alignment so we leave it in the alignment section.

b. The virtualization support item is moved to the alignment section as OVF alignment.

c. Julia notes 3 schema issue items to add:

i. The SDD author may know a lot more about what is needed to validate a parameter than can be communicated currently in the SDD. Let’s consider additional parameter metadata and/or parameter types.

ii. Default strings may need to be non-English.iii. Valid values and default values for parameters may vary by locale.

d. There are also issues relative to the profile – including the issue of making it normative. Julia noted 3 profile items to add to the profile bucket. More information on these will be provided later. Brent will create a profile bucket in the spread sheet.

e. One of the issues is the “media” descriptor. Julia notes that she has been looking at the SML-IF standard and thinks we may get what we need without too much work by extending SML-IF.

31. What is our 1.1 timing? We will start work on 1.1. now but wait a while to actually branch a 1.1 schema and spec. Ideally this will happen after 1.0 standardization is complete so that we won’t have two active branches. When will we finish? Randy suggests, and Jason concurs, that a significant driver of our end date should be the needs of the open source SDD runtime work (COSMOS).

32. 1.1 Prioritization – ALL TC MEMBERS – please look at the 1.1 issues list over the next week and be prepared to discuss your priorities next week. Please identify each issue as high, medium or low priority. After prioritization, we can get started working on proposals.

33. TC MEMBERS – do you know of other companies that would like to join this work? This is a good time to add contributors, so if you know of anyone potentially interested in joining, encourage them to do it now.

34. Meeting timing: Should we go to every other week? Opinions expressed on both sides with the majority being in favor of every other week. Jason proposes a middle ground. Go to every other week right now, and then if we realize that the runtime is going to need 1.1 earlier than it looks like we can be done, then we’ll go back to weekly. Randy proposes that we do as Jason suggests with the modification that we continue with weekly calls until we have the 1.1 issues list prioritized and proposals assigned. So, TC MEMBERS please do your prioritization and think about which proposals you can sign up for.



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 20 meeting


3. Public Review is now complete!TC vote to initiate approval of Committee Specification for PR02 revision of the specification (ballot performed by OASIS TC Administrator)

4. Remaining work A. Primer: ballot open now for final approval. B. Starter Profile Material: Complete (approval ballot passed); working on publication C. Examples: ballot open now for final approval.D. Conformance Document: Complete (approval ballot passed, content incorporated in specification) E. Version 1.1: Initiate discussion of items to address and prioritize those items. Brent has posted a mapping of known deferred items to supporting use cases.

5. Old/new business




2. Administrative: Merri is unable to attend and has requested that her proxy vote be passed to Ed from SAS. OASIS bylaws allow this. No objections are voiced. Brent does state that we would like to limit the use of proxy votes.

3. Public Review – only two comments received. One was a simple bug fix; the second will be part of the 1.1 discussion re: the specification of version formats.Also, conformance information has been added as explanatory information. This is not a substantive change. The TC can vote today to open a ballot to approve this as an OASIS Committee Specification. We do not open the ballot – the OASIS staff runs this ballot. This is a vote of the TC members. This vote requires a special majortiy to pass: 2/3 vote yes and no more than ¼ vote no. This is not the last step in getting to standardization. The next step is a vote by general membership. Each OASIS member company has a designated voting rep. This vote runs for multiple weeks and requires a special majority. After the general membership vote the

specification goes to the OASIS steering committee for final ratification. It is at this point that we need three statements of use.

Brent requests a roll call vote to petition OASIS to open the Committee Specification ballot on pr01-r01. Motion to petition OASIS to open the Committee …. ballot is made by Chris and seconded by Jason. No further discussion. Howard: YesJohn: YesRandy: YesJulia: YesLazaar: YesChris: YesRobert from SAS: YesJason: YesEd (for Merri): Yes

Vote passes unamiously. Brent will get the final housekeeping done on the spec – producing pdf, etc. and then pass this to Merri.

4. Primer – Please vote if you have not already. This requires a full majority. If not enough people vote, it won’t pass.

5. Starter Profile – Previously approved. Still waiting for publication. Decided we need rdl documents and we are awaiting the cr

6. Examples – Please vote if you have not already. cim: discussion…

7. Conformance Document – approved and incorporated in the specification.

8. SDD Version 1.1 – Brent posted a spread sheet called “Deferred Items” under Reference Material.

9. Old/New business – a. Now that Macrovision has sold their software business, do we still have

representation? Brent will try to find out.b. COSMOS update: Jason is a committer. Eric Rose from IBM is nominated to

be committer. IBM and SAS are both going through legal process to contribute code. Reviewing Change Analyzer code from IBM that parses and analyzes SDDs to identify what can be used. SAS has code that will handle a lot of the mechanics like processing artifacts, discovering versions, etc. The team is currently gathering requirements for the installation of the full COSMOS project deliverables. The goal is to use the SDD runtime being developed to install COSMOS. Also want to include registration of the deployed software with the COSMOS CMDB. Net, the SDD runtime is really “getting off the ground”. Brent notes that this is significant progress. Company participants in this work are SAS, IBM, CA and Compuware. Jason is working to grow that list. We discuss whether participation in this work constitutes use of the specification that qualifies for an OASIS statement of use. i.e. if we have 3 companies as open-source project contributors, would that qualify as the 3 statements of use?

c. Statement of use is a statement from the OASIS TC Process:Statement of Use", with respect to a specification, is a written statement by an OASIS Organizational Member stating that it is successfully using or implementing that specification in accordance with the conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, and stating

whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations.

Also, from Brent’s notes from the TC Editor/Chair briefing given by Mary McRae at last year's OASIS Symposium:

Statements of use can be of many forms (interop/prototype/etc.; need not be products)

Brent would like us to have a discussion soon re: expected statements of use.



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from March 6 meeting (Note: March 13 meeting was cancelled)

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Last week's meeting attendance

3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of end of day March 18 -- Public Review is now complete!) - next step: incorporate updates to specification and initiate approval of Committee Specification (ballot performed by OASIS TC Administrator)

4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated all agreed-upon changes (Lazar's changes, Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, updated "Conditions", "substitution value" and "weights" explanations to use the existing (updated by Randy) example). Updated version was posted for review; can consider a motion to open ballot for final approval. B. Starter Profile Material -- Updates after approval ballot complete and approved; working on publication. C. Example Updates: complete and posted (we should probably formally approve these as Committee Draft?) D. Conformance Document -- Updates after ballot approval were posted; need to approve the updates and then incorporate the result into the specification. E. Version 1.1: Initiate discussion of items to address and prioritize those items. Brent will post a mapping of known deferred items to supporting use cases.

5. Old/new business



1. Minutes for our last meeting are approved without comment or objection.

2. Last week’s meeting was cancelled with short notice. It will not affect anyone’s voting rights.

3. Primer discussionBrent notes a small number of changes that need to be made including:

a) The addition of a ResultingResource statement to the SimpleAppClient example.

b) A note from Lazaar that should have been addressed and removed.c) Reword the text about the monolithic example to talk about the features

rather than the support for multiple operating systems.d) 3 minor editing issues that Julia found.

Motion to open ballot to approve the primer was made, seconded and passed.

4. Conformance chapter discussionThree minor changes were made and have been reviewed. Motion to open ballot to approve conformance chapter was made, seconded and passed. Julia will merge in the conformance chapter to the specification, modify URL’s and post – today. Merri will review the merge and Brent will generate pdf and html files.

5. Example ballotMotion to open ballot to approve the examples was made, seconded and passed.

6. OASIS SymposiumBrent, Randy and Julia submitted a presentation proposal and agreed to do a

tutorial instead. Brent will post the slides for that tutorial so TC members can review. These will be submitted tomorrow so if you see anything that needs significant change please send comments immediately. (There will be some opportunity to modify this after tomorrow.)



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 28 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Last week's meeting attendance - New TC rules (see e-mail)

3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of 8:00 a.m. ET March 05). [PR ends in 12 days!]

4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated Lazar's recent changes, and Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, and updated the "Conditions" explanation to use the existing example. Currently working with Randy on updated examples to illustrate approved suggestions from Lazar (weights and substitution value examples) B. Starter Profile Material -- Review ballot results. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Primer & Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote. D. Conformance Document -- Review ballot results.

5. Old/new business



1. Feb. 28 meeting minutes approved without objection.

2. Administrative (1): Because of technical (phone and e-mail) problems last week, all regular attendees and/or those who sent e-mail indicating their difficulty attending will be counted as present for last week's meeting for determining voting rights.

3. Administrative (2): The OASIS Steering Committee has approved a few process changes (e-mailed to the TC). The only one that is likely to affect us, at least in the near term, is that we must designate ONE of the forms of documents we

publish (Word, PDF, HTML) as the "authoritative" version (presumably this will be our Word documents in most/all cases).

4. Administrative (3): Julia left the meeting unexpectedly. The minutes here were provided by Brent. (Thank you Brent.)

5. No new public review comments received. Brief discussion about revisiting Jason's public review comment that was closed last week; Julia/Randy to discuss offline.

6. Primer: Brent has all changes complete except additions of weights and substitution values. Because these need to be added to examples, Brent working with Randy to add to examples (Randy will post updates), then add to Primer. Review "final" Primer draft next week and consider for subsequent vote.

7. Starter Profile: Ballot passed with more than a Full Majority. There were minor comments from Randy and Julia. Jason has made and posted an update to address those comments. We reviewed the updated draft and approved it unanimously; this updated draft will be the Committee Draft (CD01) draft to be published. Merri agreed, in Jason's absence, to make the remaining updates necessary for publication (change URIs on cover page, change footer, other "housekeeping" items). Brent will use Merri's result and generate PDF and HTML versions of the document. Brent to check with Mary McRae of OASIS to see if we need to define namespaces and generate RDDL documents for the Starter Profile like we did for the specification/schema (we think not, because Starter Profile is expository, not normative, but we'll find out for sure).

8. Examples: Randy to update examples as noted in earlier "Primer" discussion.

9. Conformance Document: Ballot passed with more than a Full Majority. Randy, Julia and Robert Dickau had comments. Merri has been working to address these comments; we believe we have the substance of the updated document complete. Brent has folded the Conformance information into the "Conformance" chapter of the specification, which is where it is intended to end up. Still have a few updates to complete to the material to finish addressing comments. We'll review the updated document next week and we can vote on the amended document during the call. Because this is an addition to the specification, it won't be published separately (it will be published with the next level of the specification).

10. Other business: Randy asked about requirements for publishing expository documents; responses/plans are described in earlier "Starter Profile" item of these minutes. Randy observed that we're nearing completion on our "remaining work" items and asked about moving toward considering the specification version 1.1 items. Brent noted that we have a list of deferred items. Randy recommended that we map those items to existing use cases as a place to start the version 1.1 discussion and the TC agreed with this approach; Brent will do this (target next week). We'll review items and discuss a plan for moving forward with version 1.1 content, although once public review ends for version 1.0, we'll need to continue progressing that specification through the standardization process (we're nearing the end!). One participant claimed that Jason was partying while the TC was working earnestly, but no motion was raised to address this. :-)

Meeting adjourned approximately 11:30 a.m. US Eastern time.





3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of 8:00 a.m. ET Feb. 28; however, we have the open item about VersionRangeType continued from last week).

4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated Lazar's recent changes, and Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, and is working on remaining approved suggestions from Lazar (conditions & weights in an existing example; add substitution value example) B. Starter Profile Material -- BALLOT OPEN FOR APPROVAL. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote. D. Conformance Document -- BALLOT OPEN FOR APPROVAL.

5. Old/new business


MINUTESThe phone system was not working today. Jason sent an email with an alternate phone number and enough people called in to create a quorum. Because of the phone difficulties, today will not count as an absence for voting right purposes.

1. Minutes approval: Minutes from February 21 approved without objection.

2. Administrative

3. Public Review Comments – VersionRangeTypeJulia explains her objection to the proposal this way… Version and fix name in the SDD schema represent two distinct concepts from the domain we are modeling with the SDD. The concept of version covers information about the software level that is single, that is, there can be only one current “version”. e.g. If you know that the version is 2.1.0.2 then you know that it is not 2.1.0.3. But realize that version does not have to be numeric and does not have to be called “version”. If it is something that follows this pattern, i.e. there is only one current value for it, then it matches the concept of version. Fixes, on the other hand, are multiple. That is, there can be many different fixes all reported as being applied to the software at the same time. e.g. Knowing that Fix 123 is installed does not tell you anything about whether or not any other fix is installed.

Jason brings up the concept of supersedes and wonders if this really indicates that the concepts of version and fix as described are too simple. The response is that there is much implied knowledge about both versions and fixes and this implied knowledge really does vary dramatically. But, version and fix in the SDD are not about implied knowledge. They are there to map to information reported about the level of software on the system. Jason asks how the Windows concept of Service Pack would be modeled given this view of things. The response is that Windows concept of Service Pack is part of the information provided about the Windows operating system that matches the concept of version. As such, it should be modeled as part of the version string.Jason notes that this is essentially what the proposal is trying to accomplish. By moving fix name into min and max version, it becomes part of the expression of the structure of the Window’s version.The response is that we considered at one of the F2F meetings (prior to Jason joining our group) adding schema to provide a structure for versions. In the end, we recognized that, while many uses of version were structured, there was no single structure that would work for all real-world existing versions. We decided that understanding the version was the job of the runtime and the capability was communicated via runtime. That is, it is up to the runtime to understand the structure of version for a particular resource type and to communicate via profile how that structure is represented in the version value string.We had some discussion of the possibility of revisiting the provision of a version structure in the 1.1 time frame and there is general agreement that it is worth having that discussion – noting that any change will have to be backwardly compatible. (This can be as simple as providing a choice between string and the structured format.) Jason withdraws the proposal for 1.0 and will guide the COSMOS runtime work to define the structure of Windows version to be represented in the value strings used in the SDD.

4. Primer – status as described in the agenda. No additional discussion today.

5. Starter Profile – YES votes are coming in. Julia had three comments which Jason has addressed.

6. Example Update - No discussion of this topic.

7. Conformance Document – YES votes are coming in. Julia had quite a few comments and suggested changes. Merri has looked at those comments and disagrees with some of them. We discuss a possible compromise for one aspect of the disagreement that involves leaving in Julia’s additions to the “2.2 Extended Properties in CL2” table but not deleting the “2.4 Altered Properties in CL2” table. Merri said she would think about it. Brent said he would look at the modified text and respond with a compromise suggestion.Julia also suggested changing “Properties” to “Types”. It was noted that this had been changed previously from “Data Types” to “Properties” because of a comment by Brent. After a short discussion, Brent was comfortable with letting this be Types.

8. Old/new businessThere was a COSMOS discussion call with Jason and Dell people. DMTF is proposing OVF format (Open Virtualization Format). Some people think OVF is similar to SDD, John is unsure that there's overlap currently, but thinks that there might be in the future as OVF expands. He suggests we contact DMTF to

find out what OVF is and what overlap there might be. Brent has some knowledge of this and will follow up.



1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from February 7 and February 14 meetings


3. Public review comments review & disposition (one new PR comment received (from Jason Losh) as of 1:00 p.m. ET Feb. 20).

4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- Brent has incorporated Lazar's recent changes, and Brent's responses to Julia's previous comments, and is working on remaining approved suggestions from Lazar (conditions & weights in an existing example; add substitution value example)B. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote. D. Conformance Document -- initial review and determine plans for publication

5. Old/new business

MINUTESWe do have a quorum, Brent agrees to take notes/act as temporary secretary in Julia’s absence.

9. Minutes approval: Minutes from February 7 and February 14 approved without objection

10. Administrative: reminder from Brent that maintaining voting rights requires that a TC member not miss two consecutive meetings (some members recently have missed two consecutive meetings). Brent offers that if significant votes are taken by ballot, then active members who have temporarily lost voting rights MAY be added to vote on particular ballots if the TC agrees.

11. One new public review comment (from Jason Losh, SAS). Problem is no good way to specify fix “ranges” similar to version ranges. Proposal is to add fixName to minVersion, maxVersion.

Some e-mail discussion has occurred; question raised about fixName semantics and whether or not less than/greater than comparisons can be applied to fixName, or just equality tests. Underlying problem is similar to the general version problem, which is that different vendors use different methods for fixes (as they do for versions), with some having cumulative fixes/fix packs that lend themselves to “range” comparison, whereas others don’t.

Jason believes that the original proposal still has value in accommodating additional cases (although not all cases) for specification v1.0 and then revisiting overall version/fix topic for v1.1.

Question raised if the proposal is to “move” fixName from its current location to minVersion/maxVersion or to add it to minVersion/maxVersion so that it appears in both places. Jason states that original proposal was to move it, but current thinking is to have it in both places.

Those on the call generally agreed that the proposal improves the specification and doesn’t hurt anything, noting that this makes fixName more symmetric with Version and also could improve the likelihood of backward compatibility if we do pursue a more robust approach to this topic in specification v1.1. We also agreed to table any decision and continue the discussion (via e-mail and/or at future TC calls) to allow Julia and Randy (who have been active participants in the discussion thus far) to weigh in further (along with any others who wish to weigh in).

12. Remaining work (non-normative documents):

1. Primer: Brent is about halfway done with the changes agreed to last week. Lazar’s changes and Brent’s responses to Julia’s previous comments are complete; working on remaining items (including weights and conditions in existing examples and adding substitution value explanation). Target new version next week.

2. Starter profile: Jason posted an updated version; only minor updates.

Motion (Merri) and second (Howard) to open a ballot starting next Monday for approval of Starter Profile as a Committee Draft. Motion carries without objection. Ballot will stay open for approximately 10 days and permit active committee members to vote (see item 2 above).

3. Example: no actions; examples will be updated appropriately in response to any items in Primer or Starter Profile (Randy previously agreed to do these updates and has been keeping examples up to date).

4. Conformance document: Merri posted an updated version; only minor updates. Discussion of where to publish this information; Brent confirmed that including this in the specification would NOT be a “substantive change” per OASIS process.

Motion (Jason) and second (Merri) to include this information as part of the Conformance chapter of the specification (rather than as a separate expository document) when the document is approved. Motion carries without objection.

Motion (Merri) and second (Jason) to open a ballot starting next Monday for approval of Conformance document as a Committee Draft (to add to specification as noted above). Motion carries without objection. Ballot will stay open for approximately 10 days and permit active committee members to vote (see item 2 above).

5. Old/new business: Brent notes that he will forward any public review comments to the TC when they are received, although the public mailing list used for public review comments is accessible to anyone via the TC Public Web page.

Meeting adjourns at 11:30 eastern time.



0. Elect temporary secretary (Julia will miss this meeting, or at least be unable to take notes if she can call in)



- Happy Valentine's Day!

3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of 7:30 a.m. ET Feb. 13).

4. Remaining work

A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- review Lazar's changes; determine plan for final version for publication. Note: example updates may be required to match updated examples from item 4C.

B. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote.

C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote.

D. Conformance Document -- initial review and determine plans for publication.

5. Old/new business

MINUTESWe do NOT have a quorum, and cannot elect a temporary secretary or approve the minutes. Robert D. and Brent agree to take notes.

6. No new public review comments. Tom Studwell to discuss with Randy a comment on FixName: change needed to assoc FixName with both Min and Max; for 1.1, TC has some work to do on versioning.

7. Lazar’s updates to Primer: Brent is fine with all of them, and consensus is that the approach is correct. Brent suggests incorporating Lazar’s updates (which in turn include Brent’s comments, and Julia agrees they’re satisfactory). Suggest accepting all of Lazar’s updates and creating a merged document.

Lazar sent out notes proposing substitution values and existing conditional context. The composite example covers conditional content; do we need another example? Or just move anything new required information to composite example? Idea is to make conditions in composite example more complicated. Brent volunteers to take a stab at updating examples in Chapter

5.

Substitution values: examples don't explain enough about how they work. Lazar to forward the e-mail that prompted the question (Ed independently received a question about substitution values, too). Brent to produce next revision of primer.

8. Starter profile: Jason updated prose document based on Julia’s feedback, but is not happy with the wording; added section under 2.1, concerning producers vs. consumers, which spells out best practices, but would appreciate review and wordsmithing.

Jason and Julia’s discussions have raised questions about whether things that are generic (such as CIM_InstalledProduct) are specific enough for a runtime to discover and manage.

Action is for everyone to review the changes and prepare to discuss issues raised by discussion.

9. Conformance document from Merri: supplements explication of conformance levels and what’s different between then. Document was inspired by a question from the COSMOS team; Merri began by diff-ing schema files and organizing the differences.

There’s some question about whether to keep it a separate expository doc as opposed to an appendix or section of the full spec. It’s apparently easier in an administrative sense to publish it as a separate doc for 1.0, and we can consider integrating as an addition to the spec for 1.1.

10. No further old or new business. Meeting adjourns 20 minutes early.



0. Elect temporary chair (Brent will most likely miss this meeting)

1. Minutes approval: Meeting Minutes from January 31 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Primer approval ballot closed Monday, Feb. 4 -- did not pass with FULL majority. Need to review Lazar's example proposed changes and determine any modifications to Primer and, at appropriate time, open new ballot.

3. Public review comments review & disposition (no new PR comments received as of noon ET Feb. 5).

4. Remaining work A. Final Committee Draft for Primer -- review changes resulting from ballot (including Lazar's proposal); determine plan and vote for final version for publication.B. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote. C. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote.

5. Old/new business


1. Julia is elected temporary chair.

2. Minutes for 1/31/2007 are approved without comment or objection.

3. Primer – a. The vote did not pass – not enough people voted. We had some discussion

of intent of vote and why it was changed to a full-majority ballot. Some people thought the ballot was only for the purpose of collecting comments and seeing if everyone thought we were moving in the right direction. Others thought the result would be the posting of the primer – which is the thing that would cause it to be a Committee Draft by OASIS definitions and need a full majority vote. (Although there is even some question on whether that is correct – i.e. will the primer ever need to be a CD?)

b. How will we go forward? Lazar posted updates to one of the chapters to illustrate his suggestions. Randy has reviewed Lazar’s updates and likes them. He proposes that we modify the primer to be written in the style as posted by Lazar. (Lazar wants to know if the optional language packs are for the simple client or for the J2EE-Application. Randy will answer off-line.) Randy asks if Lazar is willing to complete modifying the document? He says OK. (Thank you Lazar!) John also has comments. He prefers to leave

the JRE as the first in the list. Does not see value add in the building block paragraph. There is no definition of building block. Randy agrees that we should not introduce the term building block. Lazar does not agree with these objections. He thinks the building block concept is important – a different term could be used, but the explanation needs to be there. The concern about the order may be mitigated when the whole document is changed. It needs to be consistent once all the changes are made. Motion made again to have Lazar modify the whole document. Seconded. John requests that Julia make the modifications, we rework this request to ask that Julia plan to review thoroughly and edit as soon as the rework is posted. Lazar thinks he can get this rework done by early next week.

4. Profile – Jason posted a new zip file last night with changes to the doc and profile schema.

a. Section 2 of the document has a couple of new paragraphs that talk about profile usage. He will rework a little more to talk about the profile extension concept in terms of the three choices: 1: Use one or more existing profiles – because they define everything you need. 2: Use one or more existing profiles that have some of what you need and create a new profile to add additional things you need. 3: Create a new profile with the definitions you need.

b. Jason added a statement about interoperability and asks if we are all OK with it? No objections are stated – but not everyone has read it yet.

c. A fictional new profile, abcprofile.xsd, was added to demonstrate profile extension.

d. Discussion of the question raised re: how to represent a requirement on a Windows service pack check. Jason and Randy suggest that this can be handled by using FixName for service pack. This leads to a debate about VersionRangeValue and whether FixName goes with the Range of values or with MinVersion/MaxVersion. In the schema, it is associated with range. It may need to be associated with Min and Max version instead. Do we need a comment for Public Review opened? Julia does not buy the service pack as FixName proposal yet and will discuss off-line with Jason.

e. We think/hope that we can vote on the primer next week.




2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Primer approval ballot now open (closes Monday, Feb. 4)

3. Public review comments review & disposition [no new comments as of 01/30/2008 8:00 a.m. US eastern time]

4. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- Determine readiness for review & vote. B. Example Update -- update examples to match Starter Profile and to use appropriate URIs; determine readiness and methodology for review & vote.

5. Old/new business


1. Minutes for 1/24/2008 are approved without objection.

2. Administrativea. Reminder that Primer ballot is open and closes next Monday. Lazar

posted/e-mailed comments; we will add this to today's agenda for discussion if time permits

b. No new public review comments received.

3. Starter Profile and Primer discussion a. Jason will add examples to the doc before next week

i. extending a profile ii. defining a requirement on specific Windows version and service

pack level b. Determine if the profile needs to be updated based on this example work

(and make the updates if any are required).

4. SDD Primer discussiona. Lazar would prefer to see the primer organized from the perspective of

someone who is going to create an SDD rather than explaining an existing SDD. He will rework one section so we can all look at it and then decide if we want to rework the whole document.

b. The current vote on the primer makes it a Committee Draft. That doesn’t prevent us reworking the doc for the next CD. Since there is discussion on the table for some serious changes, we can decide not to publish this first CD.




2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Public review submission status - Primer approval ballot now open (closes Monday, Feb. 4)- Updated standard adoption schedule posted

3. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- "schema" format in place; prose document to be updated (Jason) [see Jan. 10, Jan. 17 minutes]. Determine readiness for review & vote. B. COSMOS SDD runtime effort overview & introduction -- including e-mail question about use cases (Jason) [10 minutes]

4. Public review comments review & disposition

5. Old/new business


MINUTESWe do not start with a quorum but achieve quorum by 10 after.

5. Minutes for January 17, 2008 are approved without comment or objection.

6. Administrativea. The public review began (finally!) on January 18th and will close on March

18th. There is one comment already – from a TC member on a minor error in the schema files. Also, Merri notes a difference between the CL1 schema and the CL2 schema. We want to change CL1 schema. Should this be posted as a comment? CL1 is non-normative so no public review comment is needed. Brent will clarify with a note on the public page – i.e. state that the CL1 schema is a subset of the CL2 schema provided for convenience and is non-normative. Brent will also find out more about where non-normative docs will be posted and see about having the CL1 schema moved.

b. Primer ballot is open. Please review it (it isn’t very long) and vote. You can include comments in your vote. Note that Julia has made a lot of comments which can be seen in a marked-up version of the primer posted on the TC document page.

c. The updated standard adoption schedule shows May 1st as the earliest likely adoption date.

7. Starter Profile – Jason has posted new version of the primer and xsd files. a. Architecture check type was changed to CIM processor.

b. Values of CIM operating system and processor have been reconciled – i.e. values in profile are now identical to names used in CIM.

c. Jason requests help related to file system values. Randy will check and get back to Jason.

d. TOC is wrong – Jason will update.e. Profile class definitions have been moved to an appendix.f. Attribute sections were created to consolidate attribute information and

make the doc easier to follow.g. Section 2.1 has a statement about the SDD not governing profiles. Jason

asks if we want to make recommendations. I.e. give some structure as to how you would work with profiles. e.g. Suggest that the first step is to look for existing profiles that meet your needs; If not find one to use as a starting point and extend it; Last choice is to create your own. If you extend or make your own, contribute back to the TC. Will also make recommendation that implementations provide extension points so that SDD authors can provide a means to deal with resource and artifact types they add to their profile that are not supported by the runtime.

h. The SDD Primer assumes artifacts are defined in profiles. They aren’t there now. Should they be? We say yes and Jason will add. We decided on a simple enumeration.

Please review the profile primer now. Get comments to Jason by Tuesday the 29th. Jason will get updates to Randy by Wednesday and Randy will update example to match. Then we will go over everything next Thursday.

8. COSMOS runtime project overview and update (from Jason). Use case formulation is in progress. Work can be seen on the COSMOS wiki. These are high level use cases for tools and runtime. Next step will be to open “Enhancement Requests” for enhancements to COSMOS for specific use cases. Detailed designs are done under the ERs.

9. Merri is working on an appendix that explains more about CL1 and CL2. She would like to post it as a separate document now. It cannot be added to the spec until 1.1. We would like to include it with the other expository documents, like the primer – after the TC has reviewed and approved.

10. Question about potential F2F meetings – so people can plan travel. Are we going to wait until we instantiate 1.1 and then schedule a meeting? Do we want a F2F to kick-off 1.1? Noted that we had a F2F to kick-off 1.0 – and it happened after 1.0 use cases and requirements were done and when there were submissions to review. Noted that 1.1 could be used as an opportunity to update the charter. Changing the charter requires a re-chartering process which would also be a way to invite others to join. Noted that we have a list of items deferred to 1.1. We can pull that out in the near future and use it to create use cases for 1.1. Brent will make sure that list is posted and notes that it is a partial list.

11. Randy has posted updates to the CL1 and CL2 schema with the minor link problem fixed.

12. John notes that an SDD presentation is on the agenda for EclipseCon with question marks next to it. Is someone thinking of presenting. Jason will check this out. Brent, Randy and Julia have submitted a proposal to the OASIS symposium and have been asked to do a tutorial instead of a presentation. We will know by the end of the month if this is accepted. The content of this tutorial might be re-used at EclipseCon. But EclipseCon is March 17-20, more than a month before the

OASIS conference (April 28 – 5/1). Jason has a conflict and is not a candidate for presenting an EclipseCon.



1. Minutes approval Meeting Minutes from January 10 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Public review submission status

3. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- "schema" format in place; prose document to be updated (Jason) [see Jan. 10 minutes]. Determine readiness for review & vote. B. Primer -- accept John's updates and a few additional updates (Brent) see Jan. 10 minutes]. Determine readiness for review & vote.C. COSMOS SDD runtime effort overview & introduction -- including e-mail question about use cases(Jason) [10 minutes]D. OASIS Symposium -- opportunity for tutorial

4. Old/new business


MINUTESWe do not start with a quorum but achieve quorum by 10 after.

1. Minutes for 1/10/2008 are approved as posted.

2. Public review has still not begun. We are at the top of Mary MacRae’s list but she is apparently having connection difficulties and is not able to get our documents put in the correct location.

3. Brent posted a primer that is probably ready for review. John completed the composite application description. Brent embedded example snippets and did some light editing. He also placed snippets in other locations. Brent also completed chapter 5 in the document. Brent asks if we think the scope of the content is now about right? No comments. Please share thoughts on this via email if you think of something. Brent suggest we put this up for review now using an electronic ballot and allow comments. We can decide that abstain means agreement. Use of the electronic ballot is a way to make it easy to everyone’s comments in one place – it is not required for this non-normative document.The intent is to post this primer with a link on the front page of our public TC site. It would not be subject to formal comments.Moved, seconded and passed – open an electronic ballot as described.

4. OASIS symposium is coming up at end of April. Call for papers went out a while ago. Randy, Julia and Brent submitted an abstract for an overview paper. The symposium committee has asked us to turn that into a tutorial.

Has anyone else submitted something for the symposium? No response. Does the TC have an opinion on delivering a tutorial at the symposium – and is there someone willing to assist with that? (Symposium is the week of April 28th

in Santa Clara, CA. The tutorial would be on the 28th.) Howard is in that area and will possibly attend. Randy asks if discussion of the COSMOS work in the tutorial is appropriate and useful. Yes, it is appropriate.

5. COSMOS runtime effort – Jason wanted to give us an overview, but cannot be here today. Merri fills in. The runtime group met for several hours at IBM on Monday and came up with two sets of use cases – one for tooling and one for deployment. Tools are a build time generator and a packaging tool. For deployment, the hope is to take the use cases created by the SDD TC and adopt those for the runtime. Does anyone have a problem with this? The use cases do have company names included – i.e. the company that submitted the use case. Note that the use cases are already publicly available on our TC site and it is a TC-approved document. It appears that the OASIS copyright allows re-publishing and derivitative works from the published documents – which means that there would not be a problem. Brent will double check with OASIS. Merri will check on the Eclipse side to make sure there is no problem importing this information into COSMOS – which is an Eclipse project.

6. Old/New Business – none. We adjourn early.

Please review the primer, post comments and vote.



1. Minutes approval Meeting Minutes from December 13 meeting

2. Administrative (Julia/Brent) - Public review submission status

3. Remaining work A. Starter Profile Material -- "schema" format in place, need to update with values submitted by TC members; prose document to be updated (Jason) [see Dec. 13 minutes] B. Primer -- initial content posted (Brent); updates posted (John); need review and a few additional updates to complete

4. Old/new business



1. Meeting Minutes from December 13 meeting are approved without comment.

2. Administrative a. Public Review status – We submitted everything required from the TC for

the public review to the OASIS staff on December 13th. The staff has still not started the public review. This puts us behind on our schedule by a month. There isn’t anything we can do to change this – the public review must be a full 60 days. What we can do is try to address comments quickly. Typically comments come in at the end of the review period. Minor things can just be done by the editors. Substantive issues must be brought up in a TC meeting. All comments must be acknowledged – Brent will handle this. All comments must be addressed – Brent will send out information as appropriate.

b. Action items – there are several old action items. We have not been using action items. Two are done, others are out-of-date or deferred. We vote to close them all.

3. Remaining worka. Starter Profile – Jason updated the docs earlier today based on our

agreements made at our last meeting and has incorporated additional classes suggested by individual companies.Jason would like some help determining how to wrap up the document. It ends abruptly now after the classes are described. Additional information could include instructions or examples on how to use profiles. Pointers to examples would be good. Also include a discussion, plus examples, of how

the values in the profiles are used in SDDs. Also include information on how to extend profiles.Comment – data type and valid value definitions should be separate.Comment – there are some valid values that do not match the ones defined in CIM. If we are using the same, or a subset of CIM, we should use the same values. Jason will stick to using the family types from CIM and put a note in the document about the correspondence with CIM values.Comment – CIM models objects, not just resources. It makes for a bit of a mismatch. Randy and Jason will talk more about this off-line.Comment – Refer to the SDD primer.

Please get any additional suggestions for additional classes to Jason ASAP.

Once Jason tells us this is ready for review, the review process will be similar to what we’ve done for the specification. Even though this is not normative, it is informative and public and we’ll take a vote on it after the review.

b. SDD Primer – John posted an update that included his action item to provide text explaining the composite example. (Noted: “quite good”).John notes that some examples will need to change to match the final starter profile.Do we want to embed example files (attach) or inline them? We have both in the doc. Noted that it is easier to maintain if they are linked, but much easier to read and understand if they are inline. Another option is to put them in an appendix. Also, snippets could be inlined instead of full examples. Snippets could be combined with appendix or attachment or pointer to example files in appendix. Specification uses inline snippets combined with an appendix containing a link. We like this last suggestion best.Brent will take the pen now for the primer and change the examples and fill in content for chapter 5.Everyone – please review John’s changes (THIS WEEK) – or the whole thing if you haven’t reviewed yet.Is there more work after Brent makes changes? Brent might call on individuals for help with chapter 5. We should be ready for a review in one or two more rounds of editing.

4. New/old business:a. New work item. Examples need to be updated. Randy says he’ll do it once

we finalize the starter profile.Also, Randy asks that people review the examples (THIS WEEK) and look for things that are maybe not quite how we would like to do things and suggest updates.

b. John suggests that Jason walk us through the COSMOS work on our next call. Jason notes that subscribing to cosmos-dev can be useful. Also, there is a recurring call on Tuesdays at 9am. Progress can be monitored by attending the meeting or following the work on the wiki. Now is the time to start participating if you intend to participate at all.