Re: [ebxml-iic] Latest MS Conformance Documents

["Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Jacques Durand wrote:

> Mike, Monica:
>
> I am not sure if we should have all the current status on
> test centers, and interop initiatives (KorBIT/POSTECH, ITG, OAGI, 
> NIST...)
> in this document, at least I am questioning this in the introduction.
> I see the following issues in having this material in intro of MS 
> conformance:
> - these are mostly related to interoperability, for now. But this is a 
> conformance test suite.
> - we do not have yet assurance of these entities committing yet to do 
> conformance testing,
> at least the way we recommend it. It would be embarrassing if any of 
> these choose later to
> do conformance in another way than IIC...
> - as a spec document, it is delicate to use names of companies / orgs 
> that are supposed to
> either implement the spec, or provide requirements. It was OK for the 
> MS interop suite,
> as our objective was openly to design a common test base (subset of 
> each.), and there was
> already material out there that we could not ignore.
> - unlike interop suites, which are admittedly more dependent on user 
> requirements, conformance
> is driven mostly by the spec.
> - we may forget to mention some of the players...
>
> We may want to add more explicitly an "application" section, where we 
> abstractly refer to
> the context of test centers, and how we fit in, or how we expect such 
> a test suite to be used.
> (though we did that in the Test Framework I think). We may also expand 
> on how complementary
> conformance and interop suites are. The notion of "profiles", and our 
> choices here,
> may be explained here. If we still believe concrete initiatives need 
> be mentioned, that could be in
> an appendix.
> But that is my opinion... we can discuss this further.
>
mm1: Jacques, this sounds reasonable.  Once we speak about it on the 
call, I could realign the section for placement where the team wants.
In the interim, would you like me to contact the parties to get some 
feedback?
Thanks.

> Regards,
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>