Re: [xliff] Where we stand on conformance, and how to best resolve(RE: XLIFF TC Meeting 16 Nov 2010)

[Asgeir Frimannsson <asgeirf@redhat.com>]

Hi all,

Perhaps a way of clarifying or bringing closer some of these approaches is to think of conformance in terms of 'conformance targets'. 

From http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html#_Toc170119661 :

Conformance Target – an artifact such as a protocol, document, platform, process or service, which is the subject of Conformance Clauses and Normative Statements. There may be several Conformance Targets defined within a specification, and these targets may be diverse so as to reflect different aspects of a specification. For example, a protocol message and a protocol engine may be different targets.

Say we define two targets, 'Document Conformance' and the more fuzzy 'Application Conformance'. Document conformance is very much in line with approach (1) below, and I do believe most of us agree on the scope for document conformance (i.e. valid according to schema).

About Application conformance, imagine a specification where we in the body of the specification describe using conformance keywords (e.g. SHOULD, MAY, MUST) the processing expectations, for instance:
"Applications that manipulate the <target> content of XLIFF documents MUST preserve the old version of the content in an <alt-trans> element with the type attribute set to 'previous-version'"

We could then in the Conformance section include a section on Application conformance that lists the following conformance clause:
Application conformance:
"An implementation conforms to this specification if it satisfies all of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements defined within this specification."



cheers,
asgeir

----- "bryan s schnabel" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com> wrote:

> Thanks Christian and Yves for letting me know you cannot attend on
> Tuesday the 16th. I wonder if we might want to postpone the conclusion
> of our conformance discussion to a date we know the primary
> participants in this topic discussion can attend. I think in looking
> at the minutes, primary representatives of the various points of view
> are:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Rodolfo (with support for no processing conformance from Arle, and
> perhaps Yves),
> 
> (submitted a proposal)
> 
> 
> 
> 2) David (with support for document and processing conformance from
> Bryan and perhaps Asgeir), and
> 
> (submitted a proposal)
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Christian (who defined
> 
> A. Markup conformance, ranging from n-un which is "strict markup
> conformance", to f-e which is "basic markup conformance"
> 
> B. Processing conformance, ranging from "read," "write," "read and
> process," "write and process")
> 
> 
> 
> I think we would be missing an important part of the dialog without
> discussing Christian's "Input to discussion on Conformance" thread (
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201010/msg00013.html )
> 
> 
> 
> My request to the TC:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Please take a look at my characterization of where we stand on this
> issue and feel free to offer corrections or clarifications
> 
> 2. Please let me know if you plan to attend the meeting this week
> 
> 3. Please let me know if you agree that while we can probably move
> quickly to resolution - based on the ample discussion we've had, we
> really need to be sure we have the three primary position owners
> (Rodolfo, David, and Christian) on the call to have a rounded
> representation.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Bryan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:29 AM
> To: Schnabel, Bryan S; Yves Savourel
> Subject: XLIFF TC Meeting 16 Nov 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bryan and Yves,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case there will be a meeting, I won’t be able to attend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Christian