11 Nov
2021
11 Nov
'21
12:12 p.m.
Hi All,
My 2 cents:
* OpenZaak was created to support the ZGW API's in a production environment, also
newer versions of the ZGW API spec (but I would advise against cherry picking features in
newer version and creating a half version in conflict with the ZGW API spec version)
* If a client (or more clients) wants to develop extra API's or build on top of
ZGW API (not in conflict with ZGW API) this can be provided by the supplier of the
customer (as part of an extra module but not merged in OpenZaak repo) & maybe Create a
new version of the ZGW API (via the 'Technische gebruikersgroep API standaard voor
Zaakgericht werken' session)
* If a client (or more clients) want to change something from OpenZaak which is in
conflict with the ZGW API, we have 2 options:
* Create a new version of the ZGW API (via the 'Technische gebruikersgroep API
standaard voor Zaakgericht werken' session)
* Create and manage a different solution/product than OpenZaak
Kind regards,
Silvion Moesan
Van: Johan Groenen via openzaak-discuss <openzaak-discuss(a)lists.publiccode.net>
Verzonden: woensdag 10 november 2021 12:37
Aan: Joeri Bekker <joeri(a)maykinmedia.nl>
CC: Open Zaak discuss <openzaak-discuss(a)lists.publiccode.net>; Joeri Bekker
<joeri.bekker(a)maykinmedia.nl>; Johan Groenen <johan(a)tiltshift.nl>
Onderwerp: [OpenZaak-discuss] Re: Fwd: Open Zaak next technical steering group meeting
Hi Joeri,
I have similar discussions with respect to the (very immature) algoritmeregister standard
and algoritmeregister management application. Thinking about it, my solution would be to
call such features "pilot" features, both towards the client and the steering
group; if they are rejected later, the client needs to know that either they will end up
with a non-complient solution, or it will need to be rolled back/switched with whatever
comes in place.
Kind Regards,
Johan
Op wo 10 nov. 2021 11:33 schreef Joeri Bekker via openzaak-discuss
<openzaak-discuss@lists.publiccode.net<mailto:openzaak-discuss@lists.publiccode.net>>:
Hi all,
After the summer vacation, the technical steering meetings didn't continue. In my
opinion, this is fine and we only need to meet if necessary. But, I think it's
necessary to discuss a topic that we're struggling with at the moment.
Topic: Adding non-standard API features into Open Zaak
In short, Open Zaak currently has version 1.0 of all ZGW API's implemented. The ZGW
API specifications however are evolving. Some of these API changes are needed
"now" and the question arrives if we should just add this filter, this extra
field, etc. without moving the entire API to the next version (because that takes more
time/money). Some features might even be planned for a future version of the specification
that is not released yet (but we need now!)
The question: Should we be allowed to add some of these non-standard features into Open
Zaak (properly documented as a difference, and only if it's in line with the future of
the specifications)?
Meeting proposal
I propose to discuss this (and perhaps other topics) in the next meeting, which I'll
schedule on December 8, 14.00. If I don't hear anything before November 17, I'll
assume this date and time are okay.
Best regards,
Joeri Bekker
--
Maykin Media
Keizersgracht 117, 1015 CJ Amsterdam
tel.: +31 (0)20 753 05 23
http://www.maykinmedia.nl<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.c...
_______________________________________________
openzaak-discuss mailing list --
openzaak-discuss@lists.publiccode.net<mailto:openzaak-discuss@lists.publiccode.net>
To unsubscribe send an email to
openzaak-discuss-leave@lists.publiccode.net<mailto:openzaak-discuss-leave@lists.publiccode.net>