[DFDL-WG] Call minutes for 2024-04-18

[Sill, Alan]

We're still proceeding on the assumption that new versions or revisions to the spec will be developed under OGF, and only when ready for submission to ISO would we go to them with a new version. But I do think we should respect their restrictions regarding not making the ISO-published versions publicly accessible. So we should create a private repository for the restricted documents to keep them off of the public Internet, but I don't see any need for other adjustments yet.

Does this sound like a good approach?

Thanks,
Alan


On Apr 18, 2024, at 2:49 PM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle at apache.org> wrote:

Yeah, reconciling the OGF processes with any ISO requirements is a next step, as is updating various pages to call out the ISO/PAS relationship and correspondence of GFD.240 with ISO/IEC 23415:2024.

re: "given the ISO restrictions" you are referring to the limited access restrictions on the proof copy of the spec? Or something else?

If you think any OGF working docs pre-drafts we create can be public, but ISO-flavor-thereof should not be (for brand protection or just control reasons), then yes we need a private repo for that.

There's more issues like this. On the DFDL call today on our agenda is always the statement that everything must follow the OGF Intellectual Property rules, but that raises the concern of how does that need to evolve for us to smoothly interoperate with ISO also? Does the reminder statement need to change? As part of setting up OGF as a PAS submitter I am sure you guys worked through a bunch of this stuff. We need the short course on your conclusions from that analysis. (If this is written up anywhere I can RTFM)

I think the w3c pas faq is helpful: https://www.w3.org/2010/04/pasfaq
We need something like this.


On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:56 PM Sill, Alan <Alan.Sill at ttu.edu<mailto:Alan.Sill at ttu.edu>> wrote:
Good day Mike,

OGF's processes are public, but given the ISO restrictions, should we make a private repository on GitHub and move the ISO-process folder in that? You can then share access to that to the DFDL group only. (I believe the current DFDL repository is public.)

Let me know what you think.

Alan

On Apr 18, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle at apache.org<mailto:mbeckerle at apache.org>> wrote:

This email originated outside TTU. Please exercise caution<https://askit.ttu.edu/phishing>!

Call minutes are here: https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/blob/master/calls/2024/2024-04-18_DFDL-WG-Call.md

A proof-copy of the ISO version of the DFDL spec is here:

https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/blob/master/ISO-process/ISO_IEC%2023415_2024%20ed.1%20-%20id.87444%20Publication%20PDF%20(en)-ASill-MBeckerle.pdf

The name reflects that the file is watermarked and for A.Sill/M.Beckerle, not for general distribution.

Mike Beckerle
Apache Daffodil PMC | daffodil.apache.org<http://daffodil.apache.org/>
OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php/standards/dfdl/dfdl<http://www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php/standards/dfdl/dfdl>
Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com<http://www.owlcyberdefense.com/>


--
 dfdl-wg mailing list
 dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org<mailto:dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org>
 https://lists.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

--
  dfdl-wg mailing list
  dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org<mailto:dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org>
  https://lists.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20240418/ecbbc5e6/attachment.txt>