Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Table of Contents

...

Overall Working Group Open Task List

Task report
labelsfdc3_uc_working_group

Decisions Made

  • Voting to commence 9/14

...

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minSelect Recording Secretary for the meetinggroupRob Underwood of FINOS volunteered to be 
1 minRoll callgroup
3 minReviewing open action itemsgroup
40 minUse case discussionsgroup

Use Case 1 - Equity Trader

JT asked the group about their status with
Cesar and David expressed that they would like to have a bit more time to add their comments

Overall Motion made and decision made by acclamation made to extend comment to midnight PT (3am) for ALL Use cases, with voting to start tomorrow

Use Case 2 - Portfolio Manager

Discussing of degree to which we should be focused on desktops -- should be be including not desktop use cases. Can we bring to FDC3 the discussion of non-desktop.
Saori: Suggested that we consider amending the acceptance criteria

JT to mark work flow 1 in use case 2 to indicate the non desktop component of it.

Leslie: We can do better than deep linking.

JT: Not sure if we can connect to interop to iOS email
Leslie: We do do this in Tick42. Workflow 1 is outside FDC3 but the others are in scope and deliveriable. This is not deep linking;

Use Case 3 -- In house dev producing launch
JT: Anything we want to discuss?
Kat: have there been conversation

Leslie: There is some ambiguity aroudn the use of the word of container

Tom: I think this is actually a business user use case -- I would not call it a technical use case.

Leslie: clearly we’re doing a launcher for an end user to use; what was important to me was our interop platform

JT: What about Hadouken?

Leslie: Hadouken is not an FDC3 thing, it’s about OpenFin extensions … it’s an openfin thing; this is about extensions FDC3 needs to handle and for any FDC3 compliant application -- talks to intent, API, and app directory -- how a developer will drive their use cases.

JT: Don’t get me wrong, I have the same requirements for

Kat: I’m with JT .. this is more aroudn an interop solution, and less around standards. I don’t know how we do this with entitlements (and less aroudn SSO); this feels less around standards.

Saori asked if change will be made // Leslie: I assume it is a light edit


ACTION: Reach out to Johan and Rydian re comments … you run risk on API if you don’t make the edit.

Leslie: Should we add incomplete status ?
Saori (we just use in review?)

JT: This brings about readiness for voting.

JT: We should

Polling plug in to Confuence … we can look into …

Tom will volunteer to put elements of all these





10 minVote readiness (logistics, sufficient feedback, etc.)groupPMC meeting tomorrow (9/7) will review and vote on standards ratification process
5 minAOBgroupNo other business to note.

...