cabralje
commented
1 year ago In the initial working draft of the Publication Process, I used "NIEMOpen" sparingly. I equated "NIEMOpen" and "NIEM" in the terms section, and avoided "NIEM Classic" completely. I believe this addresses your comment.
Comments from Duncan Sparrell:
I think terminology is important and I proposed we agree on terminology to distinguish between what the document calls “NIEM Classic” and “NIEM Open”. Both these terms may imply things and better terms might be possible – and avoiding altogether might be best.
In general I think we should focus on the process moving forward so that when possible it would be best to just have one process and not confuse with how things used to be done before NIEM 6. But I understand how it’s useful for the people to see the changes. Ideally I’d like to see a document simply stating what is proposed for the process for NIEM 6. Since the process for NIEM 5 is useful to inform NIEM 6 (and for those people switching gears), I don’t object to it being included somewhere but I think the ‘how done in past’ and ‘what is different now’ belong in a separate document from the proposed plan on how to do NIEM 6.
And I would recommend not being too proscriptive about beyond NIEM 6. Yes we do need to plan but we need the experience of going thru a cycle to make realistic plans for 6.1, etc.
If we do agree to a process document focused on NIEM6 then it doesn’t need to have “NIEM Classic” and “NIEM Open” – it can just be the proposed process for NIEM 6. If we do make a ‘diff’ document, it can be ‘here is what is changed in NIEM 6 from NIEM 5’. This avoids the potential value judgements made by the terms we use like ‘classic’, ‘old’, ‘open’.
Nothing I’d fall on my sword over.