Publication Process: Use of "NIEM Open"

[cabralje]

Comments from Scott Renner:

1. Is it "NIEM Open", or "NIEMOpen"? Needs to be one or the other, everywhere! I see both forms in the repos, alas. Let's agree and make a recommendation to the PGB. Hereafter I'm going to assume no space, but I don't really care…
2. "NIEMOpen" and "NIEM" should be synonyms. Use the former to emphasize OASISness.
3. "NIEMOpen" should refer to the OASIS Open Project as a whole, not the model or any particular version.

[cabralje]

Comments from Duncan Sparrell:

“NIEM Open (or NIEM) will collectively refer to the model and specifications” Several points on this sentence.

I think NIEM should refer to the overall open project, not the collection of deliverable artifacts. E.g. “NIEM, without qualifier, will refer to the overall project”

For the collection of artifacts, I think we should put a number after NIEM and say something along the lines of “NIEM 6 will collectively refer to the model, the specifications, and the software” Note it was not just the adding of the number, it was also adding in the software. I do think it’s important to distinguish between the standards track artifacts and the software artifacts – and NIEM 6 means the collection of all of them.

[cabralje]

The NBAC TSC recommends the consistent use "NIEMOpen" of just "NIEM" for now. Ultimately, the PGB needs to formally approve this. The NBAC should discuss whether we want to include "software" in the Publication process.

[cabralje]

I updated the Publication Process document to clarify that "NIEM" refers to the project

[cabralje]

NTAC recommends that each publication include normative software code and may include non-normative code