AgGateway Digital Resource-Development Process

2019-05-09

This version:

Latest version:

Previous version:

Not applicable (first version)

Editor:

James A. Wilson, AgGateway, jim.wilson@aggateway.org

Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections.

Abstract

The AgGateway Digital Resource-Development Process (DRDP) governs the process of producing agriculture-industry Digital Resources in AgGateway

Status of This Document

This is the 2019-05-09 version of the AgGateway Digital Resource-Development Process.

This document has been approved by the AgGateway Board of Directors effective 2019-08-01 and has been endorsed by the AgGateway President as the AgGateway Digital-Resource Development Process. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a normative reference from another document. This policy was produced by the AgGateway staff.

Please report errors in this document to member.services@aggateway.org. The list of known errors is public.

The English version of this policy is the only normative version.

Table of Contents

1. Overview

2. Definitions

The following terms and definitions apply to this document and to the AgGateway Patent Policy [PATENT].

  • AgGateway Member: Any individual or organization that has joined AgGateway, as well as any employee or designated representative (e.g., contractor) of such organizations.

  • Call for Participation: A communication to AgGateway members that invites them to participate in a Working Group.

  • Collaborating Digital Resources Body: A Digital Resources body with which AgGateway has formal agreement. The form of the agreement could be reciprocal membership, letter-of-intent, memorandum of understanding, etc.

  • Draft Revised Digital Resource: A digital resource that was initially produced by the Digital Resources Committee by copying a Digital Resource for the purposes of updating it.

  • Member Submission: One or more documents developed outside of the AgGateway Digital Resources-Development Process and Information about the documents, provided by the Submitter. See section 7.

  • Proposed New Digital Resource: Any digital resource produced by a Working Group that the Working Group delivers to the Digital Resources Committee with the intent that the Digital Resources Committee will approve and publish it as a Digital Resource.

  • Proposers: One or more AgGateway Members who develop a Working Group charter and submit it to the AgGateway Standards Director.

  • Digital Resource: Refers to any digital content developed with the intent of assisting companies with implementing electronic connectivity between systems and devices within their own company, and between their company and other companies. Digital Resource includes standards, guidelines, communications tools, project-management tools, implementation tools, and requirements or proposals passed on to a Collaborating Digital Resources Body.

  • Submitter: See section 7.

  • Working Group: An AgGateway organizational unit that produces Digital Resources.

3. Main Success Scenarios for High-Level Process Definitions

By main success scenario we mean a primary and exception-free process scenario. Greater detail is provided in the process diagrams (BPMN) in sections 4, 5, and 6.

3.1 AgGateway Creates New Digital Resources

  1. Proposers develop a Working Group charter and submit it to the AgGateway Standards Director.

  2. The AgGateway Standards Director recommends charter approval and submits it to the AgGateway President.

  3. The AgGateway President approves the charter and communicates approval to the AgGateway Standards Director.

  4. The AgGateway Standards Director communications approval to the Proposers.

  5. The AgGateway Standards Director issues a Call for Participation.

  6. Interested AgGateway Members respond to the Call for Participation by affirmatively joining the Working Group.

  7. The AgGateway Standards Director convenes the first meeting of the Working Group during which a Working Group Chair, Vice Chair, and other charter-specified roles are selected.

  8. The Working Group conducts its work in accordance with the charter.

  9. At any point the Working Group has produced a deliverable that it determines is ready to be delivered to the Digital Resources Committee, it does so. At this point the Digital Resources Committee has a Proposed New Digital Resource.

  10. The Digital Resources Committee reviews the Proposed New Digital Resource.

  11. The Digital Resources Committee determines whether or not a public review period is in the best interest of its membership, and if so, conducts one.

  12. The Digital Resources Committee publishes the Proposed New Digital Resource as a Digital Resource.

3.2. AgGateway Updates Existing Digital Resource

  1. One or more AgGateway Members (Proposers) delivers a written proposal to change an existing Digital Resource to the Digital Resources Committee.

  2. The Digital Resources Committee reviews the proposal.

  3. The Digital Resources Committee approves the proposal in a meeting in which the AgGateway Standards Director participates.

  4. The Digital Resources Committee updates the applicable Draft Revised Digital Resource.

  5. The Digital Resources Committee publishes the Draft Revised Digital Resource as a Digital Resource.

3.3. AgGateway Produces and Delivers Digital Resources to Collaborating Digital Resources Bodies

  1. AgGateway follows either process 3.1 or 3.2 as appropriate.

  2. AgGateway Standards Director delivers one or more Digital Resources to a Collaborating Digital Resources Body. (The AgGateway Standards Director may accomplish this task through a liaison to the Collaborating Digital Resources Body designated by the AgGateway Standards Director.)

  3. AgGateway Standards Director, in consultation with the Digital Resources Committee, monitors the progress of the delivered Digital Resource through the collaborating Digital Resources body and updates the Digital Resource's online publication description. (For example, if the Digital Resource has been incorporated in a published content by the collaborating Digital Resources body, then that should be noted online and perhaps the Digital Resource in the context of an AgGateway resource perhaps should be deprecated in favor of the published content by the collaborating Digital Resources body.

4. Detailed "AgGateway Creates New Digital Resources" Process Diagrams (BPMN)

5. Updating an Existing Digital Resource

  1. A request to update an existing Digital Resource shall be submitted to the Standards Director in writing.

  2. The Standards Director shall post the request in a location accessible to all members.

  3. The Standards Director shall determine whether the request represents the amount or type of work that would justify a working group, or if the request does not (e.g., correct typos, add values to code lists, make a required element optional, clarify ambiguous documentation).

    1. Requires working group: Follow the same process as "AgGateway Creates New Digital Resources" except that the current version will be input to that process.

    2. Does not require working group: Make updates and deliver to the Digital Resources Committee as input to the "AgGateway process Proposed Digital Resource" process (see BPMN Diagram in section 4).

6. Delivering Digital Resources to Collaborating Digital Resources Bodies

Follow the "AgGateway Creates New Digital Resources" with the understanding that "Proposed Digital Resource" may not be for publication, but for delivery to a collaborating Digital Resources body (see the last activity "Publish Proposed Digital Resource as a Digital Resource"), or both.

7. Member Submission Process

The Member Submission process allows AgGateway Members to propose technology or other ideas to the AgGateway Standards Director for consideration by a Working Group. After an AgGateway Standards Director review, he/she MAY post the material in the associated Working Group's wiki space. The formal process affords AgGateway Members a record of their contribution and gives them a mechanism for disclosing the details of the transaction with the Working Group (including IPR claims).

A Member Submission consists of:

  • One or more documents developed outside of the AgGateway Digital Resources-Development Process, and

  • Information about the documents, provided by the Submitter.

One or more AgGateway Members (called the "Submitter(s)") MAY participate in a Member Submission. Only AgGateway Members MAY be listed as Submitter(s).

The Submission process consists of the following steps:

  1. One of the Submitter(s) sends a request to the AgGateway Standards Director to acknowledge the Submission request. The AgGateway Standards Director and Submitter(s) communicate to ensure that the Member Submission is complete.

  2. After AgGateway Standards Director review, the AgGateway Standards Director MUST either acknowledge or reject the Submission request.

  •  

    • If acknowledged, the Working Group MUST publish the Member Submission in the Working Group wiki space.

    • If rejected, the Submitter(s) MAY appeal to either the AgGateway President or the AgGateway Board of Directors.

Note: To avoid confusion about the Member Submission process, please note that:

  • The Submission process is not a means by which AgGateway Members ask for "ratification" of these documents as Digital Resources.

  • There is no requirement or guarantee that technology which is part of an acknowledged Submission request will receive further consideration by AgGateway (e.g., by a Working Group).

Posting of a Member Submission to a Working Group wiki space does not imply endorsement by AgGateway staff, AgGateway Members, or Working Group. The acknowledgment of a Submission request does not imply that any action will be taken by AgGateway. It merely records publicly that the Submission request has been made by the Submitter. A Member Submission MUST NOT be referred to as "work in progress" of AgGateway.

7.1 Submitter Rights and Obligations

When more than one Member jointly participates in a Submission request, only one Member formally sends in the request. That Member MUST copy each of the Primary Contacts of the other participating AgGateway Members, and each of those Primary Contacts MUST confirm (by email to the AgGateway Standards Director) their participation in the Submission request.

At any time prior to acknowledgment, any Submitter MAY withdraw support for a Submission request (described in "How to send a Submission request"). A Submission request is "withdrawn" when no Submitter(s) support it. The AgGateway Standards Director MUST NOT make statements about withdrawn Submission requests.

Prior to acknowledgment, the Submitter(s) MUST NOT, under any circumstances, refer to a document as "submitted to AgGateway" or "under consideration by AgGateway" or any similar phrase either in public or AgGateway Member communication. The Submitter(s) MUST NOT imply in public or AgGateway Member communication that AgGateway is working (with the Submitter(s)) on the material in the Member Submission. The Submitter(s) MAY publish the documents in the Member Submission prior to acknowledgment (without reference to the Submission request).

After acknowledgment, the Submitter(s) MUST NOT, under any circumstances, imply AgGateway investment in the Member Submission until, and unless, the material has been adopted as a deliverable of an AgGateway Working Group

7.1.1 Scope of Member Submissions

When a technology overlaps in scope with the work of a chartered Working Group, AgGateway Members should participate in the Working Group and contribute the technology to the group's process. The Working Group MAY incorporate the contributed technology into its deliverables.

On the other hand, while AgGateway Members are in the early stages of developing a charter, AgGateway Members should use the Submission process to build consensus around concrete proposals for new work.

Members should not submit materials covering topics well outside the scope of AgGateway's mission.

7.1.2 Information Required in a Submission Request

The Submitter(s) and any other authors of the submitted material MUST agree that, if the request is acknowledged, the documents in the Member Submission will be subject to the AgGateway Document License [PUB18]  and will include a reference to it. The Submitter(s) MAY hold the copyright for the documents in a Member Submission.

The request MUST satisfy the Member Submission licensing commitments of section 3.3 of the AgGateway Patent Policy [PATENT].

The Submitter(s) MUST include the following information:

  • The list of all submitting Members.

  • Position statements from all submitting Members (gathered by the Submitter). All position statements MUST appear in a separate document.

  • Complete electronic copies of any documents submitted for consideration (e.g., a technical specification, a position paper, etc.) If the Submission request is acknowledged, these documents will be posted by the AgGateway Standards Director to the associated Working Group's wiki page. Submitters MAY hold the copyright for the material contained in these documents, but when posted by AgGateway, these documents MUST be subject to the provisions of the AgGateway Document License [LICENSE].

The request MUST also answer the following questions.

  • What proprietary technology is required to implement the areas addressed by the request, and what terms are associated with its use? Again, many answers are possible, but the specific answer will affect the AgGateway Standards Director's decision.

  • What resources, if any, does the Submitter intend to make available if the AgGateway Standards Director acknowledges the Submission request and takes action on it?

  • What action would the Submitter like AgGateway to take if the Submission request is acknowledged?

  • What mechanisms are there to make changes to the specification being submitted? This includes, but is not limited to, stating where change control will reside if the request is acknowledged.

7.2 Submitter Rights and Obligations

The documents in a Member Submission MUST fulfill the requirements specified by the AgGateway Standards Director (as of this writing requirements are not specified).

The AgGateway Standards Director sends a validation notice to the Submitter(s) once the he/she has reviewed a Submission request and judged it complete and correct.

Prior to a decision to acknowledge or reject the request, the request is AgGateway staff-only, and the AgGateway staff MUST hold it in the strictest confidentiality. In particular, the AgGateway staff MUST NOT comment to the media about the Submission request.

7.3 Acknowledgment of a Submission Request

The AgGateway Standards Director acknowledges a Submission request by sending an announcement to the AgGateway Board of Directors. Though the announcement MAY be made at any time, the Submitter(s) can expect an announcement within 14 days after the validation notice. The AgGateway Standards Director MUST keep the Submitter(s) informed of when an announcement is likely to be made.

Once a Submission request has been acknowledged, the AgGateway Standards Director MUST:

  • Publish the Member Submission.

  • Publish AgGateway Standards Director comments about the Submission request.

If the Submitter(s) wishes to modify a document published as the result of acknowledgment, the Submitter(s) MUST start the Submission process from the beginning, even just to correct editorial changes.

7.4 Rejection of a Submission Request

The AgGateway Standards Director MAY reject a Submission request for a variety of reasons, including any of the following:

  • The ideas expressed in the request overlap in scope with the work of a chartered Working Group, and acknowledgment might jeopardize the progress of the group.

  • The IPR statement made by the Submitter(s) is inconsistent with the AgGateway's Patent Policy [PATENT], Document License [LICENSE], or other IPR policies.

  • The ideas expressed in the request are poor or run counter to AgGateway's mission.

  • The ideas expressed in the request lie well outside the scope of AgGateway's mission.

In case of a rejection, the AgGateway Standards Director MUST inform the AgGateway Board of Directors, the Submitter(s), and Primary Contacts of the Submitter(s). The AgGateway Standards Director MUST provide rationale about the rejection. Other than to the aforementioned parties, the AgGateway Standards Director MUST NOT make statements about why a Submission request was rejected.

The Primary Contacts associated with the Submitters(s) MAY appeal the rejection to the AgGateway Board of Directors. At the time an appeal is made, the AgGateway President will establish a process for such appeals that ensures the appropriate level of confidentiality.

8. Definition of Normative, Optional and Informative

For purposes of this definition, the normative portions of the Digital Resource shall be deemed to include only architectural and interoperability requirements. Optional features in the RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS] sense are considered normative unless they are specifically identified as informative. Implementation examples or any other material that merely illustrate the requirements of the Digital Resource are informative, rather than normative.

Appendix A: AGIIS Exemption

The process specified in this document does not apply to AGIIS maintenance and development.

Appendix B: ADAPT Exemption

The process specified in this document does not apply to ADAPT maintenance and development.

Appendix C: Fast-Track Digital Resource-Development Exception

Activity duration (e.g., member review duration) specified in this document may be reduced according to the following process:

  1. A Working Group members proposes a reduction in one or more activity durations.

  2. The Working Group chair conducts a vote and the vote result is that all Working Group members have voted and each vote is affirmative.

  3. The Working Group chair submits the approved change to the Standards Director.

  4. The Standards Director may suggest adjustments.

    1. If the Standards Director suggests adjustments, the Working Group chair may take the changes back to the Working Group for a vote (step 2) or reject the adjustments.

  5. The Standards Director will present the proposed changes to the AgGateway Operational Board.

  6. The AgGateway Operational Board will approve or reject the proposal. In any case, the Standards Director will report the outcome to the Working Group chair.

References

[KEYWORDS]

Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, S. Bradner. The Internet Society, March 1997. This RFC is available by FTP at ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2119.txt.

[PATENT]

AgGateway Patent Policy, J. Wilson, Editor. AgGateway, May 9, 2019. The latest version of this document is https://aggateway.atlassian.net/wiki/x/CIG7JQ.

[LICENSE]

AgGateway Document License, J. Wilson, Editor. AgGateway, Mar 21, 2016. The latest version of this document is https://aggateway.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NACQBQ.

Acknowledgments

Significant portions of this document is derived from the World Wide Web Consortium Process Document available at https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/. Various license requirements apply, which are met by including the following statement, with associated links, from the W3C:

W3C liabilitytrademarkdocument use and software licensing rules apply.