RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-ATand WS-BA specifications

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

I knew we'd talked about this in TX
in the past but it took me a while to dig out where. It was in the context
of issue 26 a long time ago. [1]
At that time we were deciding whether
to have integrated or standalone WSDL and schema but precedence was discussed.
It seems we never stated our decision in the specs but our decision at
that time was the following precedence (from highest to lowest):
1. Normative text within the specification.
2. WSDL & schema
3. Outlines/snippets within the specification

Having said the above, I'm not aware
of our specification materials having any ambiguity or contradiction that
requires this statement at all. Do we actually need it?

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/17464/WS-TX_Minutes_2006_03_14-15.htm

Regards,
Ian Robinson

"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>

10/03/2008 20:24

To	"'Ram Jeyaraman'" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>, Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc	<ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>, <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications

Ram, 
 
Sorry just catching up on travel
backlog.
 
Mary and myself have just been
talking about the precedence issue for another TC. Considering the external
files are the ones that should be verified for correctness, and that they
will most probably be the ones downloaded and used in projects, I recommend
we make the external files the authoritative ones (highest precedence).
 
How about:
"The XML Schema [XML-Schema1]
[XML-Schema2]
and WSDL [WSDL]
descriptions are authoritative and take precedence over 
Normative text within this specification, which in turn
take precedence over normative outlines .”
 
Martin.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:18 PM
To: Ian Robinson
Cc: Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination,
WS-AT and WS-BA specifications

Thanks Ian,
 
I have suggested text below
that includes your change.
 
In the text, I have replaced
“take precedence over the XML
Schema [XML-Schema1]
[XML-Schema2]
descriptions” with
“take precedence over the XML
Schema [XML-Schema1]
[XML-Schema2]
and WSDL [WSDL]
descriptions”.
 
The insertion point for the
conformance section seems fine.
“Conformance
An implementation is not conformant
with this specification if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST
or REQUIRED level requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node MUST NOT use
the declared XML Namespace for this specification (listed in section 1.x)
within SOAP Envelopes unless it is conformant with this specification.
Normative text within this specification
takes precedence over normative outlines, which in turn take precedence
over the XML Schema [XML-Schema1]
[XML-Schema2]
and WSDL [WSDL]
descriptions.”
 
 
From: Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:50 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination,
WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
 

My comments on the proposed new section:

• "the XML namespace identifier for this specification (listed in section 1.4)" might be better as "the declared XML Namespace for this specification" since this is part of the front page material for each spec.
• The position of the new sections in each TX spec should be between "Protocol Elements" and the References section.

Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Transactions Architect
IBM Hursley Lab, UK

Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>

06/03/2008 18:43

To	Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
cc	"ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	[ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications

 

Hi Martin,
 
Do you see any modifications to the conformance text proposed below in the case of WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA?
 
Thank you.
 
From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:51 AM
To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
 
This issue was raised by Martin Chapman (Oracle) during the March 06, 2008 TX TC call.
 
Description:
 
The WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications currently do not have a conformance section.
 
For example, RX specifications use the following conformance text:
 
“1.5 Conformance
An implementation is not conformant with this specification if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node MUST NOT use the XML namespace identifier for this specification (listed in section 1.4) within SOAP Envelopes unless it is conformant with this specification.
Normative text within this specification takes precedence over normative outlines, which in turn take precedence over the XML Schema [XML Schema Part 1, Part 2] descriptions.”
 
A similar conformance section should be added to the TX specifications.
 

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature