[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - Application vs. Implementation re specifications
For me, confusing application of an instrument and the implementation of that instrument impoverishes the language we require in order to be clear about standards for artifacts and behaviors realized with computer software. (I.e., the software is not the application of the user, it might be an implementation of a specification. I notice that IP language refers to implementation of specifications too.) And, fortunately, we don't have to align on that, although I am not sure what alternative terminology affords the distinctions I see and want to speak carefully about. I am completely aligned with the importance of profiling a standard that is normatively incorporated by reference and where that standard has provisions for adaptation/customization in an application (the typical phrasing in the specifications I had been looking at). I think a problem that we have in the current ODF specifications and heavy incorporation of other standards by reference is the omission of profiling and leaving qualifications to tacit assumption. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00063.html Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 08:30 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - Application vs. Implementation re specifications [ ... ] Application-defined (synonymous with implementation-defined) -- parameters of a standard that are defined and documented by the product that conforms to the standard. In other words, the standard does not specify the behavior, but the implementation does. [ ... ] The use of in one standard of another standard as a whole, is just a normative external reference. But if you use another standard in part, or with qualification, then the definition of how that other standard works in your standard is a "profile" of the other standard. It would certainly be a good thing if, anywhere we we include a standard, but with some qualification of it, that we consistently indicate how we are profiling that other standard. -Rob _ "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/07/2009 06:48:23 PM: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00054.html > > Um, implementation-specific and application-specific are different for me. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]