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: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:44:26 +0000
Per the TC process, the TC will of course
nominate which of the multiple copies of the specification document (PDF,
Word, HTML) is authoratative. That has not been in question.
Regards,
Ian Robinson
Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
26/03/2008 16:53
|
To
| 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 |
|
hi,
Just to add my $.02:
While it is certainly a goal to make sure that various copies of
"things" all say the same thing, as mary and others have pointed
out,
"stuff happens".
The (new) OASIS rules REQUIRE that TC's designate which of multiple
copies are considered to be the authoritative, in the event of a
discrepancy. IMO you don't have a choice on whether you'd like to or
not. What you do have a choice about is deciding which copy is
authoritative. My suggestion is that the TC do that or the "spec"
will be authoritative, by default. I'd say that's a poor choice,
since (as has been pointed out) it is the external files that people
will try to use, but it is up to the TC to decide.
Sure you can try to use the errata process to fix things, and
eventually inconsistencies will be ironed out. The problem is what
happens in the meantime. (We won't get into the fact that the
"errata" process is essentially useless, since it says only non-
substantive changes are allowed. :-)
I disagree that having precedence rules are arbitrary - to my mind
that is a red herring. Let's say you only had one copy published. It
obviously would be authoritative. Let's say there was an error in it.
It is still the approved specification and everyone has to live with
it. If it says to do A, and "someone" may have meant it to say
B, you
still have to do A.
It is the responsibility of the TC to precisely and unambiguously
identify the authoritative description of what MUST be implemented.
People don't get to pick and choose what they want to implement (and
claim conformance).
cheers,
jeff
On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Ian Robinson wrote:
>
> Just to clarify.
> The TX TC does not have copies of WSDL and Schema embedded in the
> spec - we discussed and agreed previously that "multiple copies
are
> bad" so we really do not have this more general concern. Due
> diligence is performed on all our spec materials - WSDL, schema and
> normative text.
>
> There have been TC member arguments made in favour and against
> adding a precedence statement. The argument for is essentially to
> show that we have thought about it. The argument against is
> essentially that an inconsistency should be fixed rather than
> having an arbitrary precedence applied. I have asked the TC members
> to be prepared for a TC ballot on this issue next week.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Robinson
>
>
>
> "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
> Sent by: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>
> 20/03/2008 16:39
> Please respond to
> <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
>
> To
> "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'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
>
>
>
>
>
> ...pardon a small interruption.
>
> I'd like to agree with both sides - there *shouldn't* be any
> inconsistencies
> between the various copies. Which means that each TC should take
> very careful
> measures to ensure that element identifiers are spelled
> consistently throughout
> the spec (including case), that descriptions are consistent
> throughout the spec
> and correspond to the schema, etc. But the reality is that stuff
> happens. And if
> one person states that they've implemented the specification and
> used the
> element identifiers in the specification document, and another
> person states
> that they've implemented the specification and used the schema
> file, they will
> not interoperate. One of them is incorrect. By declaring one to
> take precedence
> over the other, you are in fact certifying that you have done due
> diligence to
> ensure that there are no inaccuracies in a particular copy, and
> that everyone
> has used that copy for their testing/implementation. It should be
> noted that
> it's impossible to test a schema that is included in a document
> without first
> extracting it into a standalone file.
>
> Multiple copies of anything are bad. They introduce errors that
> oftentimes go
> unnoticed. By telling implementers that they should use a
> particular copy you
> are letting them know that that was the particular copy that was
> tested against
> and that statements of use were issued against.
>
> But you're absolutely right that it could be the version that is
> declared as
> taking precedence that has the error. Depending on the scenario, an
> errata may
> not suffice. Errata is defined in the TC Process as:
> "Errata" means a set of changes or proposed changes to a
> specification that are
> not Substantive Changes
>
> Following the thread, Substantive Change is defined as:
> "Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that
would
> require a
> compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten
> in order to
> remain compliant.
>
> Even the smallest of changes can result in a substantive change.
>
> ... now returning to your regularly scheduled programming.
>
> Mary
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:55 AM
> > To: 'Ram Jeyaraman'; 'Peter Furniss'; 'Ian Robinson'
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards
+1(650)
506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff
500
Oracle Parkway, M/
S 2OP9
Oracle
Redwood
Shores, CA 94065
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]