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 like this terse and precise proposal.
I also agree that precedence rules are not helpful and should not be added.

Regards,
Ian Robinson

Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>

17/03/2008 20:14

To	Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@irisfinancialsolutions.com>, Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc	Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "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

On conformance:

I have suggested below some modifications to the conformance text to indicate
that a non-conformant implementation must not use element and attributes
of the TX namespace within a SOAP Envelope:

"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 elements and attributes of the declared
XML Namespace (listed on the title page) for this specification within
SOAP Envelopes unless it is conformant with this specification."

I hope this addresses Peter's point about use of TX namespace within a
SOAP Envelope.

On precedence:

Since precedence rules really do not help address inconsistencies, I suggest
that we do not include any statement about precedence rules.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@ebusinessware.com] On Behalf
Of Peter Furniss
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:09 AM
To: Ian Robinson
Cc: Ram Jeyaraman; 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

On "precedence" statement:

Some spe
cifications that have taken the approach Ram proposes have included a
paragraph on the lines:

"If inconsistency are found between any of the normative text within
this specification, the normative outlines, the XML Schema
*_[XML-Schema1]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <#XMLSchema2>*
*and
the WSDL *_[WSDL]_* <#WSDL>* *descriptions, the reader is requested
to
report this defect to the OASIS WS-Tx TC (if it is still active) or to
OASIS. No general precedence rule is defined as the inconsistency, if
genuine, is a mistake."

Such a paragraph is really only needed if other specifications have A >
B > C precedence statements, just to show the TC thought about and gave
this answer. Since other OASIS specifications will be adding precedence
statements, we probably need to add this null one too.

On the conformance statement itself:

The sentence "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" would seem to be
too
broad ((Apologies if this wording has been beaten up on already) . That
would seem to disallow, for example, an error reporting service to quote
erroneous soap headers - or even to send a fault containing "namespace
<ws-tx ns> is not recognised". Obviously that's not our intention,
but a
lot depends on "use" if we are to claim we aren't saying it.
Does it
work to have something like "A SOAP Node whose implementation is not
conformant with this specification MUST NOT use the declared XML
Namespace (listed on the title page) for this specification to identify
SOAP Headers." I don't think that's quite right either (probably
over-restrictive).


Peter


Ian Robinson wrote:
>
> 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]_* <outbind://24/#XMLSchema1>
> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <outbind://24/#XMLSchema2>* *and WSDL *_[WSDL]_*
> <outbind://24/#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]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <#XMLSchema2>*
> *descriptions" with "take precedence over the XML Schema
> *_[XML-Schema1]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <#XMLSchema2>*
*and
> WSDL *_[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]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <#XMLSchema2>*
*and
> WSDL *_[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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

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