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

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

If there is an inconsistency, which
means one of the artefacts is in error, and if that error is in the artefact
which has been arbitrarily assigned greatest precedence then interop based
on the incorrect artefact has little value. The proper course of action
is surely to correct the mistake.

We originally planned starting an e-ballot
today to approve the CD specs. It seems like we may need a ballot to resolve
this issue first. I propose that we aim to make all contributions to this
discussion by e-mail by EOD Mon 24th with a view to starting an e-ballot
to resolve it on Tuesday 25th March. 

Regards,
Ian Robinson

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

20/03/2008 14:54

To	"'Ram Jeyaraman'" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>, "'Peter Furniss'" <peter.furniss@irisfinancialsolutions.com>, Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc	<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 have to strongly dissagree about precedence/authoritative
as it really may affect interop, regardless of whether it's a genuine
mistake or not.
Reporting an inconsistency does not solve any interop issue. By saying
one copy (the external Files) is authoritative removes any
ambuguity as to what vendors and users must conform to! 

Martin.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] 
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:15 PM
>To: Peter Furniss; 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
>
>
>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