RE: [oic] FW: [office] Conformance Definition Proposal

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

You might compare this with the Conformance Definition currently in Section
1.5 of ODF 1.0 and 1.1.  The proposed statement here
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=30360
is for ODF 1.2.

Also, you might want to look at the new OASIS Requirement for Conformance in
specifications.   It calls for more specificity than what is in the ODF 1.2
draft, so far.  I'm not sure how far we will get to mastering that for 1.2.
It is work in progress.
http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html
(Note that the alternative keywords are being used starting with IS 26300
and continuing into ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2)

The checklist at the end is useful.  In a way, it is a filter we need to
apply in regard to test assertions, identification of gaps in
specifications, and in characterizing a particular test:

 1. Are you using the right keywords from RFC 2119, and in uppercase? 
 2. If you are using ISO keywords, have you explicitly stated this in the
specification ? 
 3. Have you defined your Conformance Target(s)? 
 4. Are all Normative Statements clearly identifiable? 
 5. Are all Normative Statements understandable, clear, and concise? 
 6. Are all Normative Statements referenced directly or indirectly from a
Conformance Clause? 
    Note: A Normative Statement that is not related to any Conformance
Clause has no meaning 
 7. Is each Normative Statement related to a Conformance Target(s)? 
 8. Is there a separate section containing the Conformance Clauses? 
 9. Are all Conformance Clauses clearly identifiable? 
10. Are all Conformance Clauses understandable, clear, and concise? 
11. Are the top-level Conformance Clauses clearly identified and related to
a Conformance Target? 
12. Is the relationship between all Conformance Clauses clearly defined
using combinations of combined, alternative, level and profile styles? 
14. Are all Conformance Clauses either top-level or referenced directly or
indirectly from a top-level Conformance Clause? 
    Note: A Conformance Clause that is not related to any top-level
Conformance Clause has no meaning. 
15. Are there any contradictions between Normative Statements on the one
hand and a Conformance Clause and any referenced Conformance Clauses on the
other hand? If there are, have these been explicitly noted and have any
rules to over-ride the contradictions been made? 

[For those of us who seem to be specification lawyers, it is important to
recognize that OASIS recognizes descriptive text as relevant in
specifications although such text is not by its nature a normative
statement.  Normative language is apparently tied quite clearly to
conformance conditions, not to descriptive facts that become the ground for
the specification and its conformance conditions.  I need to mull on that
one.  However, there may be several conformance targets and many conformance
clauses before we are done.]

 - Dennis

PS: With regard to editorializing about the ODF 1.2 work over here, I
suppose it might be better to make use of the office-comment list over there
(with ODF TC members using the office list directly).  The office-comment
list is taken seriously and it is tracked by the committee.  (The same will
apply to oic-comment, presumably.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00030.html
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 01:48
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oic] FW: [office] Conformance Definition Proposal

Dear OIC-members,

For those who aren't following the main ODF TC, it might be interesting to
take
a look at the proposal.

Personally, I would rather have one single conformance level, instead of
having
both a strict and a loosely level...


Best regards,

Bart
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
[mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00110.html
Sent: Thu 1/15/2009 10:37 AM
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Robert Weir
Subject: [office] Conformance Definition Proposal

Dear TC members,

I would like to discuss the below proposal in the next TC call, in
particular whether we want to have something like a loose conformance.

Since the current conformance definitions need to be modified, it would
be good if we could agree on one or the other alternative as basis for
any future work on the conformance definition, if required. If one of
the two proposals already is acceptable, then that's fine for me, too,
of cause.

This would allow us to integrate the proposal into the specification,
and would allow us to work on further items that depend on the
conformance clauses. These are the schemas and the conformance clauses
for the other parts.

Best regards

Michael

[ ... ]
> Document Description:
> Conformance Definition Proposal
>
> View Document Details:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=30360
>
> Download Document: 
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30360/conformance-definiti
on-proposal-v6.odt
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and
paste
> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>
> -OASIS Open Administration