2011-08-12-Protocol

From Object Memory Modeling Incubator Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

2011-08-12 Protocol

Participants and Scribe

  • Daniel Schreiber,
  • Bruno Kiesel,
  • Marc Seissler,
  • Ralph Barthel,
  • Alexander Kröner,
  • Jens Haupert,
  • Boris Brandherm (Scribe)


TOP 1 XG and beyond

  • Towards the final report: We have now enough material for the final report of the OMM format.
  • AK reports of running actions.
    • Provenance: at the moment the Provenance group is quite quiet.
    • Ubiquitous Web Group: couldn’t be contacted anymore.
    • AIM-D: AK talked with the director of AIM-D. AIM-D cannot participate continuously. We should present them our final report to get feedback from them. Furthermore we should the OMM-XG to selected members of AIM-D.


TOP 2 OMM XML

  • ToC and block meta data: Feedback concerning the Siemens proposal.
    • JH: He added an XML example. The naming is geared to the Dublin Core Attributes. The tags actually used are those provided from Bruno Kiesel (Siemens). Jens suggests to check the proposal in a smaller group and then to finalize it.
    • AK: We should start a small working group to finalize the ToC and the Block Meta Data.
      • Bruno Kiesel (next week in holiday)
      • Marc Seissler (in holiday and a full schedule)
      • Daniel Schreiber (he can participate but the requirements should be provided from Siemens and DFKI)
      • Ralph Barthels (could do a review)
      • BK and JH will finalize it.


TOP 3 OMM Software Modules

  • Discussion of software modules complementary to the OMM activity
    • AK: To appeal it is not only sufficient to provide a proposal but also a software framework.
  • The role of the XML / binary conversion
    • AK: We have a binary format in the Project SemProM. Is it possible to transform the OMM format into the binary format?
    • MS: It is very complex. The previous approach is not a generic solution.
    • AK: Is it possible to develop a tool which transfers into a binary structure and keeps a part of the semantic?
  • What do we want to provide in the final report and as artifacts?
    • Container API
      • BK: Container-API doesn’t fit completely for OMM.
      • AK: Don’t provide the Container-API if it doesn’t fit.
    • Converter SemProM format to OMM format
      • BK: Conversion from SemProM format to the OMM format.
      • AK: This should be reported in the final report.
    • Binary format
      • DS: Wants to provide manpower concerning the binary format. This would be a unique feature. He needs a “SemProM”.
      • JH will send him two documents (=> done).

Next Telco

  • August 26, 2011, 10:00