Re: [wsbpel] BPEL potential issue - no explicit conformance statements

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

Please see below

Tony Fletcher wrote:

> 
> 
> Dear Yaron and others,
> 
> I was sort of half expecting someone to raise that point.
> 

I would hate to disappoint.

> I currently think the answer is twofold.
> 
> Firstly having a specific section gives implementers a first 'port of call'
> - somewhere they can start there search for precisely what the need to make
> their implementation do to conform to the specification - if they should
> choose to conform.
> 

I actually think that far from providing a point of call it will cause 
us to make one of the deadlier mistakes in writing specs - repeating a 
requirement. Any time a requirement is stated twice that opens the 
opportunity for confusion and mis-interpretation. That is why good specs 
make sure to state a particular requirement exactly once. Since the 
purpose of the spec is to define requirements it would seem reasonable 
to conclude that the requirements should be stated in the body of the 
spec. This therefore leaves nothing to be stated in the 'conformance' 
section other than redundant information.

> Secondly, and perhaps this is key, it seems to me that there are different
> 'things' that can be claimed to comply (or claimed not to comply) and I
> think that different statements apply to each.  So I have suggested
> different sub-sections for BPEL documents, tools and engines.  Open to
> suggestions for more or less 'things'.
> 

I think that requirements should be inline with the spec language. If a 
particular requirement applies to a particular type of BPEL tool then 
that requirement should be stated explicitly in the spec.

One can argue that it would be nice to have a list of pointers to 
requirements, essentially a table, that applies to particular types of 
BPEL implementations and I could imagine having an appendix that 
provided pointers to requirements but that is a far call from a 
conformance section.

> And a third is that it is a good practice that is followed in very many
> other specifications such as those for WSDL and XML that BPEL builds upon.
> Why did the writers of those specifications see fit to include explicit
> conformance sections when they also use the same language MUST, MAY and
> SHOULD?

Perhaps because someone pointed out to them that some other spec used a 
conformance section and rather than wondering about it's value they 
decided to just follow the herd. I wonder about it's value and on 
balance do not believe it is worthwhile and in fact can be dangerous.

		Yaron

> 
> Best Regards     Tony
> A M Fletcher
>  
> Cohesions  (TM)
>  
> Business transaction management software for application coordination
> www.choreology.com
>  
> Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0) 7801
> 948219
> tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> Sent: 26 August 2004 19:20
> To: Tony Fletcher
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] BPEL potential issue - no explicit conformance
> statements
> 
> 
> The BPEL specification already has a very clear conformance statement in
> section 2 where it defines MUST, MAY and SHOULD. In reading the proposed
> conformance text I don't see anything that isn't redundant with the
> existing requirements language in the spec. As such I am unclear as to
> what value the proposed text would add.
> 
>         Thanks,
> 
>                 Yaron
> 
> Tony Fletcher wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > Dear Colleagues,
>  > 
>  > I would like to submit the attached on Conformance.  I am sorry to
>  > have
>  > only got around recently to waking up to this aspect and doing something
>  > about it, but I have tried to provide some initial text for others to
>  > comment on and knock into shape.  My aim is to help produce a complete
>  > and rounded specification and I regard being clear on conformance as an
>  > important part of this.
>  > 
>  >
>  > Best Regards,
>  >
>  > Tony /                           /
>  >
>  > / <http://www.choreology.com/> /
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > Tony Fletcher
>  >
>  > Technical Advisor
>  > Choreology Ltd.
>  > 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
>  >
>  > Phone:
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > +44 (0) 1473 729537
>  >
>  > Mobile:
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > +44 (0) 7801 948219/ /
>  >
>  > Fax:  
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > +44 (0) 870 7390077
>  >
>  > Web:
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > /www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/> /
>  >
>  > CohesionsT
>  >
>  > Business transaction management software for application coordination
>  >
>  > Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
>  >
>  > Home: amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org>
>  >
>  > 
>  >
>  >
>  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > --
>  >
>  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
>  > of the OASIS TC), go to
>  > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_work
>  > group.php.
>