RE: [oic] interop profile or interop advisories ?

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

Bart,
I hadn't considered the question of naming until it came up on the last
call.  I think more discussion is warranted.  We probably need to determine
how many of us this is a concern for.

I repeat what I had said during the previous call.  I am not going to
filibuster this issue.  I appreciate that you want a broader consensus.
Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and play the hand we're dealt.
Thanks for asking around. 


  - Dennis
  - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   Standards are arbitrary solutions to recurring problems (R. W. Bemer)
   Although not by becoming the recurring problem (orcmid).
  When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


THINKING OUT LOUD

  1. "Interop Advisories" is a new idea and I don't know that we have
thought it through, including whatever the workflow is, where/how they would
be published, accompanying material, etc.  

  2. Although "Interop Profile" seems benign, maybe we should hold that term
back for specific profiles that are focused on a more-closely-defined theme,
such as the work Svante proposed on images, the on-again-off-again
addressing of packages, document authenticity and confidentiality (that
could be an interesting theme), and so on.  It might be how advisories
become embraced in recommended practices when a particular interoperability
theme is addressed.  We could also reserve "Interop Practices for
Such-and-Such" but that might be better retained for what Rob is looking at
in terms of how users can achieve interoperability and, secondarily, how
implementers could encourage such practices.

 3. I note that we have wandered a long way from the notion of test guidance
for assessing conformance and interoperability.  Perhaps something that
would go with a profile is ways of demonstrating adherence or lack thereof.
(I don't know if Test Assertions work here, but it is a reasonable
question.)

 4. Finally, my main concern has been that the current Interop Profile
document specifies a blanket conformance requirement for a rather incoherent
collection of provisions, and it just seems awkward and not that helpful.
It is the conformance language that has been my main concern.  I think it is
premature to do that without use in practice and understanding of what works
and what does not, as well as being careful to have something measurable.  I
have not revised the sentiment in my previous ballot comments,
<http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/vote_details.php?id=1827&v
oter_id=10903>.

 5. An afterthought.  Sometimes, it is necessary to try something out in
order to see that it isn't accomplishing what was desired, or even to see,
as the result of experience, that a different course is needed.  I don't
know that applies here, but it might be that is what there is to learn in
this case -- sort of, "Oh, now I see what should be done" that wasn't seen
until going down this particular road.




-----Original Message-----
From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 01:19
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org; Cherie Ekholm
Subject: RE: [oic] interop profile or interop advisories ?

Hi,


any further comments on "interop advisories" vs "interop profile" ?

If the proposed "interop advisories" do not address the concerns raised by
the
TC Members (wrt the "interop profile"), I just drop the idea altogether and
continue to work on the "interop profile" in its current form...

Best regards

Bart

[ ... ]