Rex,
I’ve taken all your re-writes as they are, except for minor editorial/style alignments with rest of document (eg, bolding the
MUST, SHOULD, etc) with one exception.
On your last added bullet to 4.3.6, I reworded it so that we don’t make direct references to orchestration or choreography, in line with the heavily re-written 4.3.5 that preceded it. It now reads:
“In a service-oriented business collaboration, any language used MUST be capable of describing the coordination required of those service-oriented business processes that cross organizational boundaries. This
SHOULD provide for contingencies, in case of an upset or when automation fails, including any necessary human intervention.”
I hope this is OK!
Cheers,
Peter
From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Rex Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, 27 June, 2012 08:07
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] conformance and Architectural Implications
I was not quite as stringent as Ken, and did not pay much attention to capitalization in the text outside of the Architectural Implications. However, I did compile a list of conformance type statements in the text
of Section 4 and compared it against the AIs and added statements when I wasn't satisfied that the conformance statement was included in the AIs. So Section 4.1.4 had a lot of new conformance statements added, with less in 4.2.3, 4.3.6 and almost none in 4.4.3.
I have attached only the Section 4 document. If the authors need it I can send them the compiled lists from the text.
Regardless, I was really surprised with how difficult this was, and I strongly suggest that the authors go over their AI sections with a fine tooth comb.
We really have NAILED down a specification here. It will be interesting to see what we will need to do to promote its adoption, given how tight it has turned out.
Cheers,
Rex
On 6/27/2012 5:51 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
We agreed to approach conformance by making the Architectural Implications our conformance details and removing RFC2119 capitalization in other places. In the attached, I highlight in cyan all uses of RFC2119 capitalization.
Per my assignment for the related action item, I revised wording as appropriate in Section 5 – sometimes just removing the capitalization – and added RFC2119 emphasis in the four section 5 AI subsections. I expect the security section will get additions after
Kevin adds his outlined text.
The overall question is whether revisions of this type will meet our conformance needs; then, the detailed question is whether the wording in each AI is sufficient for its material.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: soa-rm-ra-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: soa-rm-ra-help@lists.oasis-open.org
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress:
1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-898-0670