[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary
These draft changes include conformance clauses as allowed work product for committee notes. If these are truly informative materials conformance clauses don't have a place in them and they should not be listed as an allowed work product. -----Original Message----- From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 12:37 PM To: Peter F Brown (Pensive); Jon Bosak; Mary McRae Cc: Jeff Mischkinsky; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary +1 I think the debate and decision of what qualifies as a normative specification vs. other/informative material should be left up to the TCs. I would also like to voice an opinion in favor of the TC process changes for supporting creation of Committee Notes. I think the Service Component Architecture TCs potentially could use this option for publishing the material related to testing of the specifications. -- Sanjay > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter F Brown (Pensive) [mailto:Peter@pensive.eu] > Sent: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010 19:01 PM > To: Jon Bosak; Mary McRae > Cc: Jeff Mischkinsky; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary > > I think that we avoid should semantic discussions about the meaning of > "spec", "information note", "guidelines", etc and concentrate on > establishing a clear distinction between what a TC *intends* to be > normative (and thus establish a legitimate expectation on the part of > "consumers") and what a TC intends *not* to be normative (and thus > effectively issuing a caveat emptor). > > What the current discussion seems to boil down to is thus a matter of > intent. > > The only thing "we" (any OASIS TC or authority, as the "producer" of a > work) can have any control over is whether a work is intended as a > normative work or an informative (or any other purpose) sort of work. > > I agree with Jon that there will be many authorities who will wish to > make normative use of potentially *any* OASIS TC work but we can never > predict, manage or control that. No TC, nor OASIS itself, will be able > to address the issue of intent on the part of the "consumer". > > Best regards, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Bosak [mailto:bosak@pinax.com] > Sent: 10 January 2010 11:21 > To: Mary McRae > Cc: Jeff Mischkinsky; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary > > Mary McRae wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > A Committe Note does not replace Committee Specification. That is > > still a very viable category, and there is no requirement that all > > Committee Specifications be submitted for OASIS Standard ballot. If > > what you're working on is a specification, then by all means it can > > stay in the Standards Track. The new Non-Standards Track is to > > support a formal process for approval of work products / documents > > that aren't specifications. The Non-Standards Track defines the > > approval level post public review as a Committee Note > > - the equivalent in TC approval terms to a Committee Specification. > > > > I hope that clarifies and alleviates your concerns. > > Actually, I got that. Sorry if it sounded like I didn't. > > What I meant was that the ordinary English meaning of the word > "specification," viz., "a specific, explicit, or detailed mention, > enumeration, or statement of something," applies to a lot of things > that we're going to be calling Notes. For example, the UBL Guidelines > for Customization constitute "a specific, explicit, detailed mention, > enumeration, and statement" of our guidelines for customization. The > document is a specification of our guidelines. The new use of > Committee Specification now limits the universe of things called > specifications to those specifications whose possible end point is an > OASIS Standard. That's OK, but it is a limitation on the plain > English meaning of the word. > > This is just a terminological observation -- not worth quibbling > about. > > Jon > > > On Jan 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jon Bosak wrote: > > > >> I don't have the energy to review the actual process language in > >> detail -- I'm willing to trust that the Board and Staff have done > >> the right thing -- so this comment is based on the summary. > >> > >> As Ken Holman has observed, some of the UBL deliverables are not > >> intended for promotion to OASIS Standards. For two recent > >> examples, see: > >> > >> UBL 2 Guidelines for Customization, First Edition > >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/guidelines/UBL2- > Customization1prd03.doc > >> > >> UBL 2.0 International Data Dictionary, Volume 1: > >> Japanese, Italian, and Spanish > >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/idd/UBL-2.0-idd.html > >> > >> These have both been approved as Committee Specifications, which in > >> each case was the intended end state. Under the revised process > >> (if I understand it correctly), these documents will in the future > >> undergo the same approval process but be known as Committee Notes. > >> (I rather liked "Committee Specification" > >> because documents such as these are, in fact, specifications, and > >> the TC process as designed explicitly recognized a role for > >> Committee Specification as an end state; but if the Board feels the > >> need to specially identify specifications that are not intended to > >> be made OASIS Standards, I can certainly live with Committee Note.) > >> > >> Anthony Nadalin wrote: > >>> Why not have a new document type below specification, I see this > >>> as trying to force fit and will open TCs up to all sorts of > >>> strange things that may not be appropriate > >> The category of Committee Specification was created in the first > >> place to allow TCs to issue documents that represented their > >> consensus effort as technical experts but were not necessarily > >> intended to be endorsed by OASIS as an organization. A new > >> category below CS would be redundant. > >> > >> Mason, Howard (UK) wrote: > >>> I think this lower form of deliverable is exactly what "Committee > >>> Note" is about. It has no normative content, but provides useful > >>> explanatory information about the implementation of a > >>> specification or standard, and needs some form of agreement > >>> process. "Guideline" is too specific - "note" is OK. I guess the > >>> ISO equivalent would be a Technical Report. > >> I agree with almost all of this (and in fact would have preferred > >> "Technical Report" because that's already a known ISO label for > >> roughly the same thing, though I'm not passionate about it). But > >> it should be understood that a specification that is not an OASIS > >> Standard can be normative if someone wants to declare it as such > >> within some particular context. For example, the UBL Guidelines > >> for Customization could be declared to be normative if some > >> organization wished to use them in that way. As noted in the > >> summary contained in the message that began this thread: > >> > >> Committee Notes ... are not intended to be normatively > >> referenced by other standards (either inside or outside of > >> OASIS), though of course there is no way to actually stop > >> someone from doing so (hence the IPR safeguards and rigorous > >> review/approval process). > >> > >> The standards landscape is littered with specifications that were > >> never declared Standards but are used normatively. Some IETF > >> Requests for Comment are good examples. A particularly egregious > >> case is European Legislation Regulation M/715 2007 (Euro 5), which > >> mandates the implementation of a failed OASIS Committee Draft! > >> You never know the use to which these documents will be put, so > >> it's wise to require the same IPR policy and approval processes to > >> CNs that are applied to CSs. > >> > >> Jon > >> > >> > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]