[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [openc2] One item I've noticed on the current CSDs that will need to be fixed
Itâs the âautomated testing of valid messagesâ that I was worried about. I was worried you could claim âpassedâ just on the schema even if it violated a statement in the text. But my reading of your email is âin text, not in schemaâ doesnât
count as ânot in schemaâ wins. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/ From: Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@unc.edu> If isnât that the artifact is considered the final and complete, it is that if there is a difference, the machine readable artifact wins. For example we create the foo element, and refer to it as the foo element in the entire narrative and all examples in the MB file. We misspell it in the machine readable schema, as the fuo. In that case, where there is a conflict, the fuo wins. Where there is no conflict the narrative specification wins. The purpose of this rule is
There may be more. But this is a first public review. Slowing down the pace of writing to look carefully at the schema is a great public review activity. None of this slows down pushing this set of documents and artifacts to public review. tc From: openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of duncan sfractal.com Sorry it accidentally sent too soon Chet, I do have a question. One of the reasons for the discussion and the âtext beats schemaâ wording is that the schema is not as complete as the text (at least in the Language Spec). In particular there are statements in the text not represented
in the schema. If the schema is the âmore normativeâ text, would that mean the additional text constraints do not need to be met? iPhone, iTypo, iApologize Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting, LLC I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at
http://vsre.info/ From: duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com> Chet, I do have a question. One of the reasons for the discussion and the âtext beats schemaâ wording is that the schema is not as complete as the text (at least in the Language Spec). In particular there are statements in the text not represented
in the schema. If the schema is the âmore normativeâ text, then iPhone, iTypo, iApologize Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting, LLC I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at
http://vsre.info/ From:
openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> Hi members of the OpenC2 TC, We are preparing the OpenC2 Stateless Packet Filtering v1.0 csd03 right now and I noticed a technical issue that will have to be addressed before it can go forward for public review. (This may apply to others as well which is why I'm letting
you know now.) Annex B OpenC2 Schema contains a schema. Whenever a spec contains normative computer-readable files like schemas, the package must include separate plain text copies of those files. In addition, if there is a discrepancy between the copy
in the document and the separate file, the plain text file is authoritative. (The CSD reads "This annex is normative, however in the event of a conflict with the schema in the OpenC2 Language Specification, the Language Specification is authoritative." So
this annex schema will have to be provided as plain text and the Lang. Spec. will have to be as well.) This is explained in sect 2.2.5 of the TC Process. (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26#workProdComponents) Let me know if you have any questions... Best,
Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]