See also: OATC Wiki Home
Participant:
Part 1: Date: 29 October 2013 Time: 13:00 - 14:30 CET
Part 2: Date: 5 november 2013 Time: 13:00 - 14:30 CET
Venue: GoToMeeting
Topic: Completing the OGC document
Adrian Harper, Innovyze Ltd (adrian.harper@innovyze.com)
Stef Hummel, Deltares (stef.hummel@deltares.nl)~jgr@dhigroup.com
~jgr@dhigroup.com, DHI (jgr@dhigroup.com)
Peter Schade, Bundesanstalt fuer Wasserbau (peter.schade@baw.de)Rob Knapen
Rob Knapen, Alterra, Wageningen UR (Rob.Knapen@wur.nl)
Roger V. Moore, CEH, (rvm@bgs.ac.uk)
Bert Jagers, Deltares (bert.jagers@deltares.nl)
Robert Szczepanek, CUT/NT (robert@szczepanek.pl)
Standa, DHI (s.vanecek@dhi.cz)
Paul Cleverley, HR Wallingford (SeaZone group) (p.cleverley@hrwallingford.com)
Apologies: None
Meeting not completed.
SH: Either we should add the c# and java sources and the xsd’s to the zip file (does not contain them now), or we should change the text to e.g. "... version of the files specifying and documenting the OpenMI 2.0 standard."
Decision:
On the OGC web site there shall be two downloads: The specification and the standards zip file.
PDC: Is there a URI for this document? When I looked it up it appeared to be an OGC deprecated document, though it might not have been at the time we used it..
decision: Peter Schade found a more recent version from 2010. Use new one as reference instead. Can be found from:
How to fill this in (or skip?)
decision:
RVM: I will put a list of the requirements here, whether they are Core or extension and whether they are mandatory or optional.
decision: Peter will review table and check with Rob.
Maybe rephrase to "available in C# and under development in java"
decision: Standard implementations are available in C# and java. Small rephrase.
RVM: Is this paragraph in the wrong place? Is it not a conformance test and therefore should be in Clause 2?
Plus quite a few additional comments, including RVM14.
decision: Deleted
RVM: Is this the same as Annex B?
decision: Yes, it is the same. Add reference to Annex B.
decision:
Do we want to keep these, or use LinkableComponentStatus instead?
decision:
English and punctuation need tidying up.
decision: Rephrased by Stef
Adjust in compliance-xsd?
decision:
RVM: eg "The IBaseOutput instance whose values are to be adapted" and "The IBaseInput instance which will received the adapted values"
decision: Fine
In what way is this an extension?
decision: Not an extension. Part of core, but optional. Similar IManageState, that is also optional. Rephrased.
Check texts and figure 16
decision: Update figure 16: ITimeSpaceComponent below IBaseLinkableComponent and ITimeExtension.. The rest is ok.
SH: note: tables are generated from the C#-code.
decision: Do nothing. leave as is.
SH: note: tables are generated from the C#-code.
decision: Do nothing, leave as is
...
decision: Change.
(No spaces)
decision:
(SH) => ... other components are present in the composition ... or
(SH) => ... other components have been added to the composition ...
decision: Go for the second one.
...
decision:
Choose right wording for how things are tested.
OTC/OCT as name for the Conformance Tool?
...
decision: