OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sdd message

[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


May I suggest that we change the disposition of this to 'needs work' and we'll all munge on this further? I understand Julia's concern but don't want to get mired in legalese.

One thought might be to state the SDD as 'contributing' to interoperability rather than phrasing it so that it sounds as if SDD is totally responsible for ensuring interoperability.

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

          03/07/2006 03:17 PM


To

Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

cc

"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>, sdd@lists.oasis-open.org, Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

Subject

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

I like the mention of conformance level in this requirement, but this change does not address my concern. My concern is that conformance to the standard is not sufficient to provide interoperability. There are definitions outside of the scope of the SDD TC's charter that must be agreed on between implementations for those implementations to interoperate. As written, I think this requirement would tend to lead us outside the scope of our charter. I do think it is important to make a very strong statement about interoperability with respect to the SDD. But stating that interoperability in terms of successful deployment of the same SDD package goes too far. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time coming up with phrasing for this. I'll keep thinking on it and post a proposal as soon as I have one.

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


Inactive hide details for Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

                  Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

                  03/06/2006 07:53 PM

To

Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
cc

sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
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
>




GIF image



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]