[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Statement of Use
TIBCO is ready to submit the SoU – the Corporate Rep could email it to wss-m, I could do the same, or I could upload it as a doc. Preferences? From: wss-m@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:wss-m@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of David Turner Last week I discussed the Statements of Use requirement with Chet Ensign. I explained that we want to assert that the statements provided for v1.1 [1] should satisfy the requirements for v1.1.1 because:
1.
The namespaces are the same
2.
The schemas are the same
3.
Functional changes are explicitly not allowed by the WSS-M [2] charter
Chet’s opinion is that this does not meet the requirement because the “Statement of Use” definition says you must identify the specific clauses to which you claim conformance. BTW, in case you weren’t aware, the TC Process doc changed again
so I have included the definition from the current version and the previous version.
Definition from current TC Process [3] "Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement
by an OASIS Organizational Member stating that it is successfully using or implementing that specification in accordance with the conformance clauses specified in
Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. A Statement of Use must
be endorsed by the Organizational Member's Primary Representative. Definition from previous version of TC Process [4] "Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement by an OASIS Organizational Member stating
that it is successfully using or implementing that specification in accordance with the conformance clauses specified in
Section 2.18, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. I have also included the relevant text from from Section 2.18 [5] (8) Conformance Clauses. (8a) For Standards Track Work Products: A specification that is approved by the TC at the Committee Specification Public Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance
clauses, to which any implementation of the specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to the specification (or any optional portion thereof). Chet’s recommendation is that we get three of the TC members to submit new SoU for the current spec. The reasoning is that if one can claim compliance with v1.1 then, based on the three points I listed above, one should also be able to
claim compliance with v1.1.1. Thoughts? David [1]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200512/msg00006.html [2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss-m/charter.php [3]
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process [4]
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2010-07-28 [5]
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#specQuality |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]