Use Cases/May 7, 2014 Meeting Page

From IDESG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

1. Call to Order
2. Request/assign volunteer to take notes – Cathy to take notes.
3. Roll call
- Bryan Russell
- Ann Racuya-Robbins
- J. Andrew Hatter
- Cathy Tilton
- Jim Fenton
- Jonathan Rosenberg
- Tom Jones

4. IDESG Intellectual Property Rights Policy reminder


5. Review and approval of notes from 4/09/14 meeting


Notes from last meeting were accepted with no corrections.
6. Agenda Review

a. Review order of business for priority
b. Agenda was reviewed and accepted.

Jim asked about next steps after MC comment dispositions WRT privacy committee review. Will be discussed under item 7.
7. Report from meeting with management council and plenary chair
Cathy and Bryan meet with Kim Sutherland and Peter Brown on 5/2 to try to understand how our work products will be used within the IDESG goiong forward.
Work perceived as important to IDESG work overall, will help to inform workproducts of other committees. For example, functional model group have reviewed an mapped to the functional elements; would like to see a use case that exercises the authorization elements.
Some discussion of the use of UCs to communicate to external orgs the value of the IDESG and its work. (Particularly in light of recent publicity.) Can help us better communicate. Question – who would prepare use cases for external comms purposes? Unclear. Bryan – suggests that existing use cases be refined in future. Other groups may analyze for their purposes. This may require additional detail. Cathy added that Peter had suggested we may want to break out the process part of the document from the use cases themselves. There are pro’s and con’s to this – con is that inevitably people ask –“How did you select these use cases?” “What are their purpose?”
Big question is whether to revise and publish what we have now (and then work on next version) or step back and try to identify and fill gaps before we publish. No direct answer from this discussion or the chairs call on Tuesday.
Jonathan suggests we publish what we have now but going forward, add human user centric use cases.
Bryan – maybe need to also update the criteria for the next revision.
Bryan – should the application of the use cases (i.e., mapping them to workproeducts) be done in other committees or SCC/UCAHG. Cathy believes the former as that is where the domain expertise resides.
Other question – are use cases useful in current state or need formal plenary approval before they can be used? Can be just published to the Wiki.
Andrew – if only publish to Wiki, would this affect future use cases? Are there IPR considerations if they are used without publication (with plenary approval)? Publication connects IPR to a specific entity. ACTION: Consult with Steve Mednick on this.

Cathy – 2 issues:

1) publication method (doc or web),
2) approvals necessary.

IF we go with web only, could organize Wiki into 3 sections:

1)“Completed” use cases
2) “In Progress” use cases
3) “Proposed” use cases.

Next steps – finish off MC comments, then forward to Privacy review. Next Eval subcomm meeting is this coming Tuesday (5/13). Meets every 2 weeks. Jim now chairs this and is tracking via dashboard. Will we be ready? No - Some use cases have been updated and privacy considerations addressed. Target for 5/27.
8. Continue/Finalize Management Council Comment dispositions


Process: We will only address comments where the proposed disposition is ‘discuss’ or anyone objects to a proposed disposition.

  1. 23 – Noted.
  2. 26 – Accept? Tom objects. Reject.
  3. 31 – Noted.
  4. 32 – Noted.
  5. 37 – Noted.
  6. 40 – Noted.
  7. 45 – Reject.
  8. 51 – Noted.

Next steps:
o Bryan to post dispositions.
o Incorporate dispositions into use cases/document
o Send to SCC for approval
o Initiate privacy review

9. Review UCAHG Draft Terms of Reference


Next time.
10. Adjourn