Need to provide formal description of behavior for operations. Inter-operability will be a far stretch without it (Larry Johnson, 20091204)
The XMI is not well formed & does not play well with other tools. This problem may correct itself since EA is participating in the XMI interchange working group. The original XMI was generated with V7.1. (MPG used a much later version). We will keep our tools up to date and stay in communication with Sparx to see if this issue can be resolved
For AttributeProfiles it is important to distinguish between user entered and system entered fields.
This is a concept that has been an important design criteria for RMS from the beginning.
We must assure that all fields and operations for accomplishing this are provided.
Many of our operations operate on one object at a time. For efficiency a single call to perform the same action, or to provide multiple instances of object values needs to be accommodated. (e.g., return sets of id's, set many attribute values on an attributable object at one time, set-aside many records at a time.)
Using plain Xquery can introduce security issues when it comes to authentications and authorization. Has this approach been revised?
Our current service model often requires numerous operations to accomplish a task which must be completed or else the repository will be inconsistent. The task of setting aside a record, for example, is not a single operational call. Should connection be lost between the client server, or any operation fail, the repository can be left in an inconsistent state. This violates one of RMS original design principles
Query Service mentions that input parameter qualifies the requested elements and the return string contains the elements that match the request. The Spec does not define a schema for the query string.
The disposition plan is executed against a record set,
but the spec does not define how managed records are added to a record set. Is there some insight into the expectation?
To fit the broadest spectrum of business processes we need to assure that only the absolutely necessary attributes for records management are required.
Issue identified in the San Antonio TC RMS-FTF Meeting
The CaseFilePart description does not properly reference CaseFilePartDefinition concerning constraints on the CaseFilePart
Description: This defines the number of times a certain case file part can occur in a context (the case file or a case file part once hierarchy is supported). Example: an auto damage claim case, whereby four photo’s would be required, e.g. one from each side of the car. So, cardinality (multiplicity) of part “Car body photo” would be 4 (associated to the corresponding case file part definition).
Description: This allows referencing one case file part from another, potentially in another case file. This would allow referencing e.g. a customer from an order.
Package: RecordCreatorsService
[JRMS Remaining Issue]
A practical system requires an effective exception architecture.
Nominally 80% of the normal operation of a given system is in exception processing, not to be confused with related concepts of system errors or failure.
Need to devise an exception architecture suitable for informing user of errors and to allow developers to debug unexpected responses.
[JRMS Remaining Issue]
We must state that a hold on record attributes must disallow changes or updates of any sort, or enumerate the specific changes that are allowed, if any.
[JRMS Remaining Issue]
The current discussion of Record Schedule and its relationship to categories is inadequate.
[JRMS Remaining Issue]
Package: CategoriesService: Do we need Ids for CategorySchemas and RecordCategories? Is Name unique or the path down the form the top to the record category?
The presumed concept of RMS operation is that most communication will be done between the client & server via the ID's of the objects being referenced. We need to assure we have ID's on all entities that require it.
[JRMS Remaining Issue]
Description: This enables building a structure like an order with embedded lines. Example: Sales order for professional product, e.g. aircraft (order from e.g. Continental to Boeing). There’s a lot of “documents”, but there’s also a lot of “typical application data”, such as in CRM, ERP, etc. systems. It should be possible that case files refer to both in combination.
The FTF needs to use the appropriate namespace URLs for the XML schemas and WSDL documents associated with the RMS spec. The current draft of the SMSC format for these URIs is at: http://www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?smsc/09-06-03.pdf
How many In Force authentication methods can there be? Does there have to be at least one in force at all times?
[JRMS Remaining Issue]
Description: Case file parts are attributable. To express structured data, you not always need an associated document. It should be possible to explicitly mark a case file part as 'no document expected'.
As it is currently designed, the RecordPart requires the content to be stored as a hexBinary blob. This is very convenient to deal with non-XML data, but it's considerably limiting when dealing with XML data.
Considering the emergence of XML databases, if the content of the record part were stored as regular XML, I could perform a XQuery statement that could traverse both the RMS-related data as well as the record-specific data.
This is also aligned with the emergence of XMLSec (allowing digital signatures embedded in XML documents).
The simplest way to solve this issue (while providing backward compatibility) would be to provide a choice between "content" - which would still be the hexBinary blob - and a new "xmlContent" element - which would then be of the type "any" and then could store any arbitrary XML document.
There is probably a need to consider language talking about the inherent conflict arising from the proper use of terms in the OMG RMS Spec and the use those same words have in the DoD 5015.2 Standard. For example, the word "Agency" is specified in the OMG Spec but it is addressed differently in the 5015.02. The 5015.02 operates more from the individual/action officer level with regard to this and the OMG Spec applies itself to satisfying 44 U.S.C. and 36 C.F.R. (Daryll Prescott, 20091207)
Among other things, Annotations are used to tag ManagedRecord's with their security designations. There are situations in which only some RecordPart's are classified, therefore we need to be able to annotate RecordPart's separately. There was discussion of allowing Annotation's to Document's directly, but it was pointed out that there are situations in which a Document is not classified, but in the presence of another Document it is.
DoD 5015.02 does not specify field sizes. Nor does RMS in most cases. The description of a photograph might be adequately handled by 500 characters in one agency whereas another agency may require 50K characters. If the size is specified, what happens to inter-operability?
There needs to be a double delete authority, two seperate persons (personalities) in the system before something that is identified as a record can be dispositioned. (Daryll Prescott, 20091203)
Would a caseDefinition, as core object in case management extend caseFileDefinition, or associate with it? (Henk de Man, 20090225)
Name: Daniel Ruoso
Company: Prefeitura de Fortaleza
mailFrom: daniel@ruoso.com
Notification: Yes
Specification: RMS
For the fields effectiveStartDate and effectiveEndDate in Role, that information might not be known at the time the record is first captured. Are these fields required? If not, how do I work around that?
We need to require that it be done on capture. Should we require other events like retrieval? (This would get into the business process of the organization
The RM environment when an authorized user wants to "open" a record, a copy of the ManagedRecord must be provided to the user to open, or placed in a temp directory to open to preclude any possibility of any change
We need to provide the capability to include/exclude records that are on hold for Disposition Candidates identification. (Bill Manago, 20091204)
In the specification the package diagram does not include, for example, "Disposition". (Larry Johnson, 20091209
Clarify that we are using the steriotypes from SOAML