Re: [office-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dennis,

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [cc: to main list because this matters very much there too.]
>
>   
Yes, but I have not seen a single sentence that I could either support 
or object to for inclusion in the OpenFormula draft.

I freely grant that the OpenFormula text needs work, that is why I am 
editing on it, but that isn't an invitation to sweeping declarations 
about the current texts and debates on meta-questions about conformance.

If you don't think we have stated the requirement for support of 48 bit 
parameters properly, say so and then suggest text that fixes what you 
see as the problem. Telling me that it fails your personal reading of 
suggestions on conformance may be interesting but not terribly useful. 

At least with specific language that you find problematic and/or 
proposed replacement text the members of the OpenFormula SC or the ODF 
TC can say whether they agree, disagree, etc. That is something I can 
then incorporate into the current draft.

For example, Andreas made it clear that *all* implementations must 
support 48 bit parameters.

That means to me that:

1) It is a requirement that all implementations that claim to conform to 
OpenFormula must support so it should not be buried in some section of 
the draft.

2) That a properly drafted conformance clause will say (it doesn't exist 
yet) that all implementations shall support 48 bit parameters but may 
support longer parameters. (Leaving open the question if we define what 
happens if a longer parameter is passed about, open to *concrete* 
suggestions on that point.)

If you want to object that we have not defined what is meant by 48 bit 
parameter, possibly a valid objection, then say that. And then suggest, 
define it this way (here statement of 48 (or other) bit parameter).

Note that following that process will focus both comments and responses. 
Not to mention getting us closer to a draft that does in fact meet the 
OASIS requirements.

Sorry if that sounds a bit short but if we are going to revise and 
proceed with the OpenFormula text, we need to isolate *specific* issues 
and propose *specific* language to resolve those same issues.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


> Andreas, 
>
> It is my understanding that neither statement satisfies the OASIS guidelines
> for conformance and normative statements.
>
> That is, unless "implementation" is an identified conformance target in the
> Conformance section of the specification.  (Apparently, "implementation"
> does not imply "conformant implementation" in OASIS parlance, and
> "conformant implementation" is not a conformance target unless such is
> defined in the conformance section.) 
>
> I don't believe that is the case at this time.  Now, it is also the case
> that the ODF 1.2 draft has not been moved to the latest template with
> inclusion of a conformance section that's been reviewed to satisfy the
> current OASIS guidelines.
>
> For those who are curious what that entails, I recommend review of the
> following document:
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html>
> .  Perhaps the most important part of the guideline document is the
> checklist in the final section.  For me, this makes the intent and the
> satisfaction of that intent very clear.  The examples and then the
> nomenclature differences between normative statements, conformance clauses,
> and conformance targets can be explored for deeper understanding.
>
> The Conformance Guidelines are referenced directly from the 2009-10-28 OASIS
> Templates and Guidelines page, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/>,
> directly from the OASIS Specification QA Checklist,
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/QAChecklistV2.html> at the end, and
> indirectly in the OASIS Technical Committee Process that went into effect on
> 2009-09-01, <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php> second
> paragraph of section 2.18 and of material importance in the definition of
> "Statement of Use" in Section 1 item (ai).
>
>
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas J Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00059.html
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:17
> To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [office-formula] BITAND
>
> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:04 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00058.html
>   
>> (In this regard, I
>> emphatically disagree with the PS in the note from Andreas, and I believe
>> the OASIS conformance guidelines are also in conflict with that PS.)
>>     
>
> Dennis,
> could you explain to me what you see as the difference between the
> following two statements (in the context of the OpenFormula
> specification):
>
> 1) To comply with this specification, an implementation *shall* support
> parameters of at least 48 bits.
>
> 2) An implementation *shall* support parameters of at least 48 bits.
>
> Andreas
>
>   

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)