[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6
Folks, Though I was absent for earlier discussion of this thread, here is my opinion. I think that I understand both considerations from Debra and Julia. > all implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully > install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level. And here, I see a conflict between an objective and a minimum requirement; it is quite essential as an objective for standardization while it casts the doubt there might be cases it fails, if we see the statement as a absolute requirement for the SDD compliant implementations. My proposal is to make the statement to read as requirements to SDD itself, for example: 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 should have ability to install the same SDD package, satisfying what the conformance level specifies. We can defer defining the requirements for its implementations until we have a requirement set for SDD specification itself. -Keisuke Thomas Studwell wrote: > When I wrote the ending clause I considered adding a number of > qualifying statements that would limit the scope of what "successful" > meant but, in the end, knew I was heading into a legalese rathole. So I > left it general with my understanding that the scope of interoperability > was within the context of the *description* of the installation, not the > installation itself. > > Clearly we ultimately want perfect interoperability but I'd just as soon > iterate toward that goal than try to achieve it on the first pass. So, > as a long term requirement for SDD, I don't think 2.9.6 is a bad one. > I'm willing to attach additional qualifiers if we see a need but I'd > just as soon agree among ourselves that the scope for V1.0 is more > limited than the broad interpretation. > > Thomas W. Studwell > Senior Technical Staff Member, Autonomic Computing Architecture > IBM Software Group > B140/Bldg 500 > 4205 S Miami Blvd, Durham, NC 27703 > (919) 254-7574 Fax: (919) 254-7628 Mobile: (919) 619-1038 > studwell@us.ibm.com > > "There is a word for complaining about a problem without proposing a > solution - it's called whining." Ric Telford 2006 > Inactive hide details for Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUSJulia > McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > *Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS* > > 03/06/2006 09:12 AM > > > > To > > "Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com> > > cc > > sdd@lists.oasis-open.org, Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > Subject > > RE: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6 > > > > > 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 > > > Inactive hide details for "Danielson, Debra J" > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>"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 > > > Inactive hide details for Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUSThomas > 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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]