RE: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6

[Julia McCarthy <julia@us.ibm.com>]

I agree that interoperability is very important, but I think it can only be achieved to the degree that we fully specify the contents of the SDD. Perhaps a better example is resource types. I don't think the SDD will define resource types and yet an implementation that cannot support a particular resource type could never successfully install an SDD that used that resource type. If two implementations support the resource types then they should be interoperable. I think we need to either fully specify everything that will be in the SDD or reword this requirement to only cover what is fully specified.

Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391


"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

03/06/2006 09:00 AM

To	Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	<sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6

I agree with Tom’s rewrite, and I think it should be reasonably strong. I think that if we don’t have as an objective reuse of descriptors regardless of the implementation initially targeted, then I’m not sure what value we are bringing with the standard.

Tom’s phrasing doesn’t say that the results of a SDD install will be identical if installed on multiple implementations, only that it is successful. I believe that this gives us the leeway within the SDD to support metadata that can be exploited by implementations and other standards. So in the example of your naming standards – why would support for multiple naming/ versioning standards be any different than supporting platform differences, or supporting multiple application servers?

Regards,
Debra

---

From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:14 AM
To: Thomas Studwell
Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6

Unfortunately, this wording does not address my concern. Specifically, this final phrase still contains too broad a claim.

all implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level.

I believe that there will be other factors in a successful install that are outside the control of the SDD specification. For example, we've been discussing naming and versioning as being outside the scope of the SDD. If competing standards for naming and versioning emerge it is quite possible that implementations may function with one or the other standard but not both. There really is something very important to say with this requirement, but I think it needs to stop short of claiming that using SDD provides universal interoperability. Unless there are people in the group that believe SDD really will provide universal interoperability. Anyone?

Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391


Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

03/03/2006 05:57 PM

To	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6

OASIS Solution Deployment Descriptor (SDD) TC member,

Mr Thomas Studwell has modified this action item.

Number: #0051
Description: 2.9.6
Owner: Mr Thomas Studwell
Status: Open
Due: 03 Mar 2006

Comments:
Ms. Julia McCarthy 2006-03-02 00:07 GMT
2.9.6 Julia disagrees because Debra suggests this contradicts 2.11.1. Tom will look at use case and make recommendation to either reword or delete. ACTION ITEM #0051

Ms. Julia McCarthy 2006-03-02 00:15 GMT
Here is the expanded text from the minutes:
2.9.6 Julia disagrees because she believes there will be factors outside the scope of the SDD that determine interoperability. Debra suggests this contradicts 2.11.1. Tom will look at the associated use case and make recommendation to either reword or delete. ACTION ITEM #0051

Mr Thomas Studwell 2006-03-03 22:57 GMT
Replaced section 2.9.6 with the following text:
2.9.6 The SDD specification, while defining various conformance levels (see requirement 2.11.1), must be sufficiently unambiguous so that all implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level.

View Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sdd/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1292



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