[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case
Thanks Mary. Best wishes for your nephew. Cheers, Rex At 10:54 AM -0400 4/18/08, Mary McRae wrote: >Thanks Rex! > >Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. It sounds like it might also >be something for the adoption subcommittee to handle in terms of >"implementation >guidelines" or "best practices" maybe? > >And thanks for the thoughts and prayers - my nephew is actually on >his way home >from the hospital after having a golf-ball-sized brain tumor removed on >Wednesday. All indications are that it was benign although it will be a week >before the final pathology reports are in. > >Mary > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:12 AM >> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Alessandro >> Triglia' >> Cc: 'Elysa Jones'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case >> >> Hi Mary, >> >> In various exchanges, we have arrived at what I think will be the >> consensus, and it matches a) and b). >> >> We are concerned with obtaining the Statements of Use mostly, but >> also with encouraging adoption and implementation. The EIC wanted us >> to provide guidance, (hoping to encourage some members of that org, >> or associates of that org to join OASIS, too) and that's what we are >> doing. >> >> Cheers, >> Rex >> >> At 9:47 AM -0400 4/18/08, Mary McRae wrote: >> >Hi folks, >> > >> > Sorry for interjecting again. When I read the previous messages, I >> >thought that some companies (non-OASIS members) wanted to be able to >> >say that their product/service/etc conformed to a particular >> >specification and therefore needed an actual conformance statement >> >in the specification so that they would know what the requirements >> >are. (i.e. certification/compliance). As David says, you can't build >> >conformance/compliance tests without knowing exactly what is >> >required and what is optional in various scenarios. Now I'm getting >> >the impression that this is tied to the OASIS TC Process requirement >> >for 3 Statements of Use that must be submitted in order to move >> >forward with an OS Submission ballot. Those Statements of Use: >> >a) Should say exactly what is required by the TC Process, no >> >less (and most often, no more) >> >b) Must be from OASIS Organizational Members >> > >> >My apologies for not being thoroughly engaged in the overall >> >conversation; I've spent the last few days worrying about a close >> >family member and many hours at the hospital, but I don't want to >> >see the TC spending cycles that may result in over-engineering ;-) >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Mary >> > >> >From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] >> >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:04 PM >> >To: Alessandro Triglia >> >Cc: 'Elysa Jones'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > > >Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case >> > >> >In the past these have been two completely separate activities. >> > >> >Once the specification is approved - then compliance and conformance >> >activities can be established. >> > >> >However - OASIS has attempted to tighten the onus on members making >> >statements of use and validation of the specification - so they are >> >not superficial. >> > >> >I would suggest that we still have to take these things in good >> >faith - and trust that the level of due diligence is sufficient. >> > >> >"Your actual mileage may vary" is the phrase that constantly resonates >> here. >> > >> >For example - vendor X or agency Z may be going full bore on a major >> >implementation of specification Y with a 20 man team working around >> >the clock. One expects that they will have thrown a ton of dirt out >> >of the hole and found most of the rocks by now - and that feedback >> >be passed to the TC. >> > >> >Conversely - another TC maybe producing a specification that is 2 to > > >3 years ahead of where the market currently is. This may be a small >> >group - or a research department - close to the theory and practice >> >in the domain - but nevertheless - producing a new paradigm. One >> >expects that implementation will be based on testbeds and >> >experimental inclusion into production test systems - to verify a >> >subset of function. >> > >> >The key here is that people want to know when they vote on something >> >that it has at least been tried in some capacity and been found to >> >be successfully applicable. Therefore the statements of use should >> >give indication of the scope and extent. >> > >> >As always - people expect a V1.0 specification to mature over time - >> >while a Version 3.0 clearly represents substantial investment and >> >feedback. >> > >> >In between is a large amount of outreach and hand holding to take a >> >specification from the drawing board to wide adoption and use. >> >Bottom line is we really need to leave it up to each member to make >> >a statement they are comfortable with - and then to either accept >> >that - or require additional members in order to cover the breadth >> >we may sense is needed. >> > >> >Thanks, DW >> > >> > >> > >> >-------- Original Message -------- >> >Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case >> >From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com> >> >Date: Thu, April 17, 2008 11:07 am >> >To: "'Elysa Jones'" <ejones@warningsystems.com>, >> ><emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >> > >> > >> >In my view this is straightforward. The statement of use should be >> strictly >> >based upon the conformance clause. We can't set requirements for a >> >statement of use that are more stringent than the conformance requirements >> >specified in the standard itself. >> > >> >If the conformance section of a standard says that an implementation "X" >> is >> >conformant if and only if it does "Y", then all that the statement of use >> >really needs to say is something like, "Here is an implementation X of >> this >> >standard, which I certify to be conformant to the standard". >> > >> >If the standard specifies multiple conformance targets, the statement of >> use >> >needs to say which target is being referred to. >> > >> >If the standard specifies multiple conformance classes or levels, the >> >statement of use needs to say which conformance class or conformance level >> >is being referred to. >> > >> >In other words, in my view, a statement of use should simply state that >> the >> >OASIS member organization has created an implementation of a standard and >> >should contain a conformance claim about that implementation. Like any >> >other conformance claim, that conformance claim should simply and very >> >clearly reference the particular conformance target, conformance class, >> >conformance level, and any conformance options that are specified in the >> >standard (if any). >> > >> >The conformance section of RM (as of today) doesn't say that >> implementations >> >must support a complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment. >> >Therefore we cannot impose that kind of requirement on the statement of >> use. >> >If the TC believes that all implementations of RM should really support a > > >complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment, then we should >> >change the standard to specify that requirement either in the conformance >> >section or elsewhere. >> > >> >Alessandro >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Elysa Jones [mailto:<#Compose>ejones@warningsystems.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30 >> >> To: <>emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: [emergency] Use Case >> >> >> >> TC Members, >> >> >> >> We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what >> >> constitutes a "Use case" in our Standards. Most of you have >> >> been aware of this topic but we have not nailed down a >> >> position. We must do this before we can make the big push to >> >> get use cases for HAVE and RM. >> >> >> >> This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday. There >> >> are several EIC members that know of companies that may want >> >> to be the first or one of the first to advertise such a use >> >> case. We need to give them specific wording on what > > >> constitutes this "use". OASIS requires the statement to be >> >> in agreement with the conformance clause of the >> >> specification. We as a TC can cause this to be more or less >> >> stringent and there are schools of thought on both. >> >> >> >> Please review the two positions on the matter identified >> >> below and respond to the list on your preference. Although >> >> this does not require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make >> >> sure we have a good understanding and consensus on how we proceed. >> >> >> >> Position 1: >> >> >> >> * Comply with the full element reference model - required >> >> elements at a minimum. If a message is sent that complies >> >> with the ERM, then you can be compliant with any of the >> >> specific messages. >> >> * Deliver a RequestResource message and a >> >> ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 messages). >> >> >> >> If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use >> >> and getting the standard out the door, this should be the >> >> minimum requirement. >> >> >> >> Position 2: >> >> >> >> * Agreed with position 1 >> >> * A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource >> >> Deployment should be the minimum: >> >> >> >> RequestResource > >> >> ResponseToRequestResource > >> >> RequisitionResource > >> >> CommitResource > >> >> ReleaseResource. >> >> >> >> The messages about the deployment, requesting information, >> >> release, etc are not necessary, just the 5 listed. >> >> >> >> NOW - please make your comments to the list. The Mst/Not SC >> > > will schedule a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to >> >> discuss. From this a recommendation will be made. Respond >> >> to this message too with which date and what times you would >> >> be available. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Elysa Jones >> >> Chair, OASIS EM-TC >> >> CTO/COO >> >> Warning Systems, Inc. >> >> >> > >> > >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in >> OASIS >> >at: >> ><https://www.oasis- >> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>https://www.oasis- >> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs >> >in OASIS at: >> >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> >> -- >> Rex Brooks >> President, CEO >> Starbourne Communications Design >> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >> Berkeley, CA 94702 >> Tel: 510-898-0670 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in >> OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]