ws-tx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-ATand WS-BA specifications
- From: Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>
- To: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:09:47 +0000
I agree with Ram's rationale that it
is better to fix any inconsistencies that may be found rather than defining
an order of authority.
I suggest the conformance text be simply
as follows:
“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 (listed on
the title page) for this specification within SOAP Envelopes unless it
is conformant with this specification.
Regards,
Ian Robinson
Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
11/03/2008 23:01
|
To
| Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>,
Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
|
cc
| "ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org"
<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 |
|
Ideally, there should
not be any inconsistencies between the specification and its associated
artifacts.
In case of an inconsistency
between the specification and one of its artifacts, there are a few possibilities:
1. The
specification is incorrect
2. The
artifact is incorrect
3. Both
are incorrect
The obvious solution to this
problem is to resolve the inconsistency by publishing an errata in order
to bring the specification and/or the artifact back to a consistent state.
Setting a precedence rule,
such as the assigning the artifact or the specification an overriding position,
carries the risk of perpetuating an error. For example, if we say the artifact
has a precedence over the specification, and the artifact turns out to
be erroneous, then unfortunately the precedence rule would make the erroneous
artifact correct by default.
I observe that any overriding
precedence hierarchy does not actually correct the underlying cause of
the problem and it carries the danger of making an erroneous publication
correct. Hence, I do not see a value in prescribing a precedence rule.
Thanks.
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:08 AM
To: 'Ian Robinson'
Cc: Ram Jeyaraman; 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
Yes we do need it as "I
am not aware" doesn't mean to say there aren't any! Typically these
are editorial errors/typos, which do happen.
So lets just cover our backs in
case.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:37 PM
To: Martin Chapman
Cc: 'Ram Jeyaraman'; 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
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
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]