OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [xri] Proposed syntax changes


I certainly agree on the need for requirements for all proposed changes. A
few notes/suggestions about this process:

1) The "Introduction/Motivations" section of each proposal document (for
issues that have a proposal document) was a start on these requirements,
however I completely agree we need a more explicit requirements section. I
will update all three change management pages to refer to
"Requirements/Proposal Page" and commence work on adding a requirements to
the proposal pages for all issues.

2) As I mentioned in email to Gabe and Mike yesterday, frequently it is
design and implementation experience that surfaces requirements that are
otherwise hard to see in advance. I encourage all implementers on the TC to
contribute to the requirements section of any proposal page for a revision
you are interested in because it is your implementation experience that
uncovered these requirements.

3) I agree we should make requirements discussion the first part of our
agenda in discussing issues both on the list and in our TC calls. However I
again will point out that it is often design and implementation work that
surfaces requirements, so it is often helpful to be able to point to a
proposed design (the solution to problem) to understand the problem itself.

That certainly has been my experience in helping generate the proposals for
the Resolution spec refactoring, the Namespace refactoring, and XRID
refactoring, and the Synonym Element refactoring. It is only by having gone
through the process of generating these proposals (and now the additional
step of drafting the proposed revisions) that I have come to understand a
number requirements which otherwise would have been almost impossible for me
to percieve, let alone understand.

I will take as much time as I can today and tomorrow to document all these
requirements on the corresponding proposal pages.

=Drummond 


-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:38 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Proposed syntax changes

In looking over the list of proposed changes
(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/Xri2Cd02/SyntaxChanges) to the syntax
spec, the only one that doesn't seem to need motivation/requirements/use
cases is I1: X.500 Directory Attribute Appendix.  This issue seems like
something obviously useful and I'm happy to support adding the text to
the specification.

In the case of all of the other issues though, I feel strongly that we
need to be discussing the requirements and agreeing on the need to
support them in cd02 before we start talking about proposed solutions.
Without the requirements for these changes/additions and agreement that
now is the time to address them, I don't see how we can consider
including *any* of them in cd02.

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]