[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Re: [emergency-cap-profiles] Specification Profiles,Application Profiles, Layers...
Hi Everyone, I had a typo in the address in the cc: below, which I am rectifying now. This is good information on what a Profile is, can be described, and it will eventually be a concern for adoption, whether as an SC or TC, though I certainly hope it turns out to be a TC. Cheers, Rex >Mailing-List: contact >emergency-cap-profiles-help@lists.oasis-open.org; run by ezmlm >List-Post: <mailto:emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org> >List-Help: <mailto:emergency-cap-profiles-help@lists.oasis-open.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><mailto:emergency-cap-profiles-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:emergency-cap-profiles-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org> >Delivered-To: mailing list emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org >Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:50:41 -0800 >To: Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org>, Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> >From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> >Cc: EM CAP Profiles SC List <emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org>, > emergency-adoption@lists, oasis-open.org, > emergency-rim@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [emergency-cap-profiles] Specification Profiles, Application > Profiles, Layers... >X-Nonspam: Statistical 62% > >Thanks Robin, > >This will help. I think one venue where this kind of information can >be collected would be in the EM Adoption SC, so I'm copying that SC >with this information. I'm also copying the EDXL-RIM SC because the >definition of a Profile as used in EDXL or EDXL-related >specifications needs to documented. > >We're finally arriving at the time when many standards can, should >and will be used in concert, and, while initially this will cause a >certain amount of difficulty for implementers and jurisdictions, >once established, the level of interoperability and efficiency will >increase markedly. And, of course, once established it will be taken >for granted. Too bad we can't jump straight to that state without >the intermediate phases, but we'll get there. I think the course is >set, but I can only hope that it is irreversible. > >Cheers, >Rex > >At 8:27 AM -0500 1/11/09, Robin Cover wrote: >>On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Rex Brooks wrote: >> >>>Thanks Robin, >>> >>>I'd really like to get "ISO/IEC TR 10000-1:1998 Information >>>technology - Framework and taxonomy >>>of International Standardized Profiles - Part 1: General >>>principles and documentation framework" >>> >>>It is cited in OGC 3.1 Section 22 Profiles. So far, I have found >>>the OGC material very helpful. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Rex >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000 (1988) >> >>Parts 1-3 are available from the collection of ISO Freely Available >>Standards, >>as well as from the ISO Store (ca. $226 USD). Your choice. ;-) >> >>I here provide bibliographic information and an unofficial excerpt >>from Part 1 >>(please see the complete ISO text for details, as the excerpt by itself >>may be misleading). >> >>================================================================== >>I. ISO/IEC TR 10000 from the ISO Store (CHF 252, == USD $226) >>================================================================== >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-1:1998 >>Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy of International >>Standardized Profiles -- Part 1: General principles and >>documentation framework >>http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=30726 >>Cost: CHF 80,00 >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-2:1998 >>Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy of International >>Standardized Profiles -- Part 2: Principles and Taxonomy for OSI >>Profiles >>http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=30728 >>Cost: CHF 106,00 >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-3:1998 >>Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy of International >>Standardized Profiles -- Part 3: Principles and Taxonomy for >>Open System Environment Profiles >>http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=30727 >>Cost: CHF 66,00 >> >>================================================================== >>II. ISO/IEC TR 10000 from ISO's Freely Available Standards >>================================================================== >> >>Freely Available ISO/IEC Standards >>http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html >> >>================================================================== >>Bibliographic Information and Excerpt for ISO/IEC TR 10000-1 (Part 1) >>================================================================== >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-1:1998 >>Fourth Edition >>Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy of International >>Standardized Profiles -- Part 1: General principles and documentation >>framework. From JTC1. Technical Report. 1998-11-01. 18 pages. >>Reference number: ISO/IEC TR 10000-1:1998(E) >>Copyright (c) ISO/IEC 1998. >> >>http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c030726_ISO_IEC_TR_10000-1_1998(E).zip >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-1, which is a Technical Report of type 3, was >>prepared by Joint Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information >>technology. This fourth edition cancels and replaces the third >>edition (ISO/IEC TR 10000-1:1995), which has been technically >>revised. ISO/IEC TR 10000 consists of the following parts, under >>the general title "Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy >>of International Standardized Profiles": >> * Part 1: General principles and documentation framework >> * Part 2: Principles and Taxonomy for OSI Profiles >> * Part 3: Principles and Taxonomy for Open System Environment Profiles >> * Other parts to be defined as necessary. >> >>Introduction >> >>The context of Functional Standardization is one part of the overall >>field of IT standardization activities covering: >> >> * Base Standards, which define fundamentals and generalized procedures. >> They provide an infrastructure that can be used by a variety of >> applications, each of which can make its own selection from the >> options offered by them. >> * Profiles, which define conforming subsets or combinations of base >> standards used to provide specific functions. Profiles identify the >> use of particular options available in the base standards, and provide >> a basis for the development of uniform, internationally recognized, >> conformance tests. >> * Registration Mechanisms, which provide the means to specify detailed >> parameterization within the framework of the base standards or >> profiles. >> >>Within ISO/IEC JTC 1, the process of Functional Standardization is >>concerned with the methodology of defining profiles, and their >>publication in documents called "International Standardized Profiles" >>(ISPs) in accordance with procedures contained in the Directives of >>JTC 1. The scope of Information Technology standardization to which >>this process is being applied is that which corresponds to the >>generally understood, but loosely defined, concept of "Open Systems". >>The objective is to facilitate the specification of IT systems >>characterized by a high degree of interoperability and portability >>of their components. >> >>Scope >> >>This part of ISO/IEC TR 10000 defines the concept of profiles, and >>the way in which they are documented in International Standardized >>Profiles. It gives guidance to organizations making proposals for >>Draft International Standardized Profiles on the nature and content >>of the documents they are producing. >> >>This part of ISO/IEC TR 10000 outlines concepts of profiles and >>taxonomies (or Classification Schemes), and the format and content >>of ISPs. Annex A gives details of the format and the content of >>ISPs as required by ISO/IEC JTC 1. >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-2 provides principles and a classification scheme >>for OSI profiles which may be or have been submitted for ratification >>as International Standardized Profiles. >> >> NOTE: These OSI profiles specify OSI base standards, and those base >> standards concerned with interchange formats and data representation >> which are expected to be used in conjunction with them. >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-3 provides the context for functional standardization >>in support of Open System Environments (OSE), and principles and a >>classification scheme for OSE profiles which may be or have been >>submitted for ratification as International Standardized Profiles. >>It outlines the basic OSE objectives and concepts, and defines an >>approach and format for OSE profiles specified by International >>Standardized Profiles and, along with this part of ISO/IEC TR 10000, >>gives guidance to organizations making proposals for Draft ISPs on >>the nature and content of the documents they produce. >> >>Part 2 and Part 3 may be extended for OSI and OSE profiles respectively >>and further parts of ISO/IEC TR 10000 may be developed to define other >>classes of profiles. >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000 is applicable to all International Standardized >>Profiles of ISO and IEC. Its primary focus is the area of competence >>of ISO/IEC JTC 1, but by mutual agreement with JTC 1, other Technical >>Committees may undertake similar functional standardization activities >>leading to the inclusion of additional material in this Technical >>Report. >> >>[Definition]: "Profile: A set of one or more base standards and/or >>ISPs, and, where applicable, the identification of chosen classes, >>conforming subsets, options and parameters of those base standards, >>or ISPs necessary to accomplish a particular function." >> >>5. Purpose of profiles >> >>Profiles define combinations of base standards or other profiles >>for the purpose of: >> >>* identifying the standards and ISPs, together with appropriate >> classes, conforming subsets, options and parameters, which are >> necessary to accomplish identified functions (e.g. interoperability) >> or to support a class of applications (e.g. Transaction Processing >> applications) >> >>* providing a scheme of referencing the various uses of standards >> and ISPs which is meaningful to both users and suppliers in >> response to a systematic identification and analysis of user >> requirements >> >>* providing a means to enhance the availability for procurement of >> consistent implementations of functionally defined groups of >> standards and ISPs, which are expected to be the major components >> of real IT systems, and which realise the intentions of the >> corresponding reference models or frameworks with which the >> standards are associated >> >>* promoting uniformity in the development of conformance tests for >> IT systems that implement the functions associated with the >> profiles >> >>Underlying all these purposes is the assumption that there exists >>a requirement for the definition, standardization, implementation, >>and testing of such a profile. The processes employed shall therefore >>include the identification, recording, and monitoring of such >>requirements, as expressed by the eventual users of the profile... >> >>[******* please see the complete/official ISO text; the excerpt >>above is in no way official or authoritative **********] >> >> >>================================================================== >>Bibliographic Information for ISO/IEC TR 10000-2 (Part 2) >>================================================================== >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-2:1998 >>Fifth Edition >>Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy of International >>Standardized Profiles -- Part 2: Principles and Taxonomy for OSI >>Profiles. From JTC1. Technical Report. 1998-11-01. 30 pages. >>Online download (free): >>http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c030728_ISO_IEC_TR_10000-2_1998(E).zip >> >> >>================================================================== >>Bibliographic Information for ISO/IEC TR 10000-3 (Part 3) >>================================================================== >> >>ISO/IEC TR 10000-3:1998 >>Second Edition >>Information technology -- Framework and taxonomy of International >>Standardized Profiles -- Part 3: Principles and Taxonomy for Open >>System Environment Profiles. From JTC1. Technical Report. >>1998-11-01. 18 pages. >>Online download (free): >>http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c030727_ISO_IEC_TR_10000-3_1998(E).zip >> >> - Cheers, >> Robin >> >>Robin Cover >>OASIS, Director of Information Services >>Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink >>Email: robin@oasis-open.org >>Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover >>Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ >>Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html >>Tel: +1 972-296-1783 >> >>---------- >> >>> >>>At 3:43 PM -0500 1/10/09, Robin Cover wrote: >>>>When I spotted the conversation about (definition of) "profiles" on the >>>>EM CAP Profiles SC List [1], I sent Rex a brief note about WS-I, OGC, >>>>DCMI, and (? IIRC) some other SSO arenas in which I'd spotted interesting >>>>profile work. >>>> >>>>Here are a few references that may be of interest. I understand that the >>>>topic (generally) has now been forwarded to the TAB for consideration. >>>> >>>>Examples: >>>> >>>>* UML Profiles >>>>* Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) Application Profiles >>>>* Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Profiles and Application Profiles >>>> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>UML Profiles >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>"UML Profiles are subsets of UML tailored for specific purposes" >>>> >>>>UML Profiles tailor the language to specific areas -- some for >>>>business modeling; others for particular technologies. All of >>>>our standard profiles are available from our Profiles Catalog at >>>>http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/profile_catalog.htm >>>>You'll find these Profiles: >>>> >>>>* Platform Independent Model (PIM) & Platform Specific Model >>>> (PSM) for Software Radio Components (also referred to as >>>> UML Profile for Software Radio) >>>>* UML Profile for CORBA and CORBA Component Model (CCM) >>>>* UML Profile for Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) >>>>* UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC) >>>>* UML Profile for Modeling QoS and Fault Tolerance Characteristics >>>> and Mechanisms >>>>* UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time >>>>* UML Profile for System on a Chip (SoC) >>>>* UML Profile for Systems Engineering (SysML) >>>>* UML Testing Profile >>>> >>>> >>>>=== 13 Core::Profiles === >>>>http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/08-05-04.pdf >>>> >>>>The Profiles package contains mechanisms that allow metaclasses >>>>from existing metamodels to be extended to adapt them for different >>>>purposes. This includes the ability to tailor the UML metamodel >>>>for different platforms (such as J2EE or .NET) or domains >>>>(such as real-time or business process modeling). The profiles >>>>mechanism is consistent with the OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF). >>>> >>>>=== Extensibility === >>>> >>>>The profiles mechanism is not a first-class extension mechanism >>>>(i.e., it does not allow for modifying existing metamodels). >>>>Rather, the intention of profiles is to give a straightforward >>>>mechanism for adapting an existing metamodel with constructs that >>>>are specific to a particular domain, platform, or method. Each >>>>such adaptation is grouped in a profile. It is not possible to >>>>take away any of the constraints that apply to a metamodel such >>>>as UML using a profile, but it is possible to add new constraints >>>>that are specific to the profile. The only other restrictions >>>>are those inherent in the profiles mechanism; there is nothing >>>>else that is intended to limit the way in which a metamodel is >>>>customized. >>>> >>>>First-class extensibility is handled through MOF, where there are >>>>no restrictions on what you are allowed to do with a metamodel: >>>>you can add and remove metaclasses and relationships as you find >>>>necessary. Of course, it is then possible to impose methodology >>>>restrictions that you are not allowed to modify existing >>>>metamodels, but only extend them. In this case, the mechanisms >>>>for first-class extensibility and profiles start coalescing. >>>>There are several reasons why you may want to customize a metamodel: >>>> >>>>* Give a terminology that is adapted to a particular platform or >>>> domain (such as capturing EJB terminology like home interfaces, >>>> enterprise java beans, and archives). >>>>* Give a syntax for constructs that do not have a notation >>>> (such as in the case of actions). >>>>* Give a different notation for already existing symbols (such as >>>> being able to use a picture of a computer instead of the >>>> ordinary node symbol to represent a computer in a network). >>>>* Add semantics that is left unspecified in the metamodel (such as >>>> how to deal with priority when receiving signals in a >>>> state machine). >>>>* Add semantics that does not exist in the metamodel (such as >>>> defining a timer, clock, or continuous time). >>>>* Add constraints that restrict the way you may use the metamodel >>>> and its constructs (such as disallowing actions from >>>> being able to execute in parallel within a single transition). >>>> >>>>=== Profiles History and design requirements === >>>> >>>>The [UML] Profile mechanism has been specifically defined for >>>>providing a lightweight extension mechanism to the UML standard. >>>>In UML 1.1, stereotypes and tagged values were used as string-based >>>>extensions that could be attached to UML model elements in a >>>>flexible way. In subsequent revisions of UML, the notion of a >>>>Profile was defined in order to provide more structure and >>>>precision to the definition of Stereotypes and Tagged values. The >>>>UML2.0 infrastructure and superstructure specifications have >>>>carried this further, by defining it as a specific meta-modeling >>>>technique. Stereotypes are specific metaclasses, tagged values are >>>>standard metaattributes, and profiles are specific kinds of packages. >>>> >>>>The following requirements have driven the definition of profile >>>>semantics from inception: >>>> >>>>1. A profile must provide mechanisms for specializing a reference >>>> metamodel (such as a set of UML packages) in such a way that >>>> the specialized semantics do not contradict the semantics of >>>> the reference metamodel. That is, profile constraints may >>>> typically define well-formedness rules that are more constraining >>>> (but consistent with) those specified by the reference metamodel. >>>> >>>>2. It must be possible to interchange profiles between tools, >>>> together with models to which they have been applied, by >>>> using the UML XMI interchange mechanisms. A profile must >>>> therefore be defined as an interchangeable UML model. In addition >>>> to exchanging profiles together with models between tools, >>>> profile application should also be definable 'by reference' (e.g., >>>> 'import by name'); that is, a profile does not need to be >>>> interchanged if it is already present in the importing tool. >>>> >>>>3. A profile must be able to reference domain-specific UML libraries >>>> where certain model elements are pre-defined. >>>> >>>>4. It must be possible to specify which profiles are being applied to >>>> a given Package (or any specializations of that concept). This is >>>> particularly useful during model interchange so that an importing >>>> environment can interpret a model correctly. >>>> >>>>5. It should be possible to define a UML extension that combines >>>> profiles and model libraries (including template libraries) into >>>> a single logical unit. However, within such a unit, for >>>> definitional clarity and for ease of interchange (e.g., >>>> 'reference by name'), it should still be possible to keep the >>>> libraries and the profiles distinct from each other. >>>> >>>>6. A profile should be able to specialize the semantics of standard >>>> UML metamodel elements. For example, in a model with the profile >>>> 'Java model,' generalization of classes should be able to be >>>> restricted to single inheritance without having to explicitly >>>> assign a stereotype 'Java class' to each and every class instance. >>>> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) Application Profiles >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter/news2009-01-05.html#cite4 >>>>http://dublincore.org/documents/2009/01/05/profile-review-criteria/ >>>>A new publication by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) >>>>Usage Board presents guidelines articulating the criteria by >>>>which the DCMI Usage Board reviews an Application Profile. As of >>>>March 2008, the main points of reference for these review criteria >>>>are [...] >>>> >>>>http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/ >>>>Singapore Framework for Dublin Core Application Profiles >>>> >>>>http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/06/04/abstract-model/ >>>>DCMI Abstract Model >>>> >>>>http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/ >>>>Description Set Profile Specification >>>> >>>>http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/2007-03-09/ >>>>Dublin Core Collections Application Profile >>>> >>>>http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile >>>>Eprints Application Profile >>>> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Profilea and Application Profiles >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>OGC Specification Profiles >>>>http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/profile >>>> >>>>The OGC Standards and Specifications >>>>http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/orm >>>> OpenGIS Implementation Standards are of five types, three of which >>>> are Profile, Application Profile, and Application Schema... In >>>> the OGC, a GML profile is a restricted subset of the full GML standard. >>>> >>>> "The requirements of an application schema determine the XML Schema >>>> components from the GML schema to be included in a GML profile. GML >>>> defines a variety of conformance classes that apply depending upon >>>> the content of a specific profile..." >>>> >>>> "GML Application Schemas: Designers of GML application schemas may >>>> extend or restrict the types defined in the GML schema to define >>>> appropriate types for an application domain. GML application >>>> schemas use applicable GML schema components, either directly or >>>> by specialization, and are valid in accordance with the rules for >>>> XML Schema..." >>>> >>>>Schemas and Profiles - What's the Difference? >>>> Ron Lake: Lots of discussion has taken place as to the role of GML >>>> Application Schemas and GML profiles and a lot of this discussion >>>> has been misleading as the two items are often confused with one >>>> another... >>>>http://geoweb.blog.com/419886/ >>>> >>>>http://xml.coverpages.org/Reed-OGC-200701.html >>>> "in the application layer, a common characteristic is that relatively >>>> simple standards can be developed and deployed that are profiles >>>> or application schemas of other, more "complex" standards such as >>>> GML." >>>> >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00002.html >>>> >>>>OGC Releases GML Simple Features Profile Specification for Review >>>>http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-07-07-a.html >>>> >>>>"EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement" (Carl Reed) >>>> >>>>By way of background, the OGC has had compliance testing for a >>>>number of our standards for many years. We have recently upgraded >>>>the compliance testing engine (open source) and our members have >>>>developed a Compliance Assertion Language (more on this later). We >>>>have recently added tests for 6 existing OGC standards and some >>>>profiles of those standards, such as GeoRSS GML. Notice we use the >>>>word "compliance". We spend weeks arguing whether we should >>>>have "conformance" testing or "compliance" testing. Turns out that >>>>there are very specific semantics associated with the use of those >>>>words in the context of testing a standard or a profile of a standard >>>>as to whether it meets the mandatory elements of the given standard. >>>>I should also point out that there is a big difference between >>>>compliance testing and interoperability testing. Just because an >>>>implementation of a standard has tested to be compliant does not >>>>guarantee interoperability - it only increases the probability of >>>>interoperability..." >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-msg/200709/msg00041.html >>>> >>>>GML Application Schemas and Profiles >>>>http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/210 >>>> >>>> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>Random >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>>Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:50:37 +1100 >>>>From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> >>>>To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> >>>>Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org >>>>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Revisiting XML Profile >>>>Rex Brooks wrote: >>>>>Hi Folks, >>>>> >>>>>I'm returning to this list after a long absence because I'm >>>>>working on a Profile of an existing Standard specification, >>>>>and I'm looking for the best, most accurate and usable definition for >>>>>a Profile that fits this purpose. I thought the Irish RIG profiles had >>>>>a definition. >>>> >>>>I don't what has become of them: they are off-line now: >>>>http://sdec.reach.ie/rigs >>>> >>>>I wrote about them here: http://oreilly.com/pub/wlg/6659 >>>>["Great Irish Government subsets of XML Standards", March 2005] >>>>http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200812/msg00185.html >>>> >>>>======= >>>> >>>>Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:55:08 -0600 >>>>From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk >>>>To: tag@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>Subject: RE: [tag] Test Assertion Modeling - comments, etc >>>> >>>>Serm asked: >>>>>Could this be handled with profiles? >>>> >>>>I'd guess not. A profile is a variation of the product being >>>>standardized, not a variation of the way the standard is >>>>defined for the same product. HTML for example wouldn't have >>>>one profile for browser support and another for an HTML >>>>editor and another for how XSLT might be used to convert it >>>>to pdf. The whole point is to standardize the markup and maybe >>>>include how a key app should handle it. I guess a standard is >>>>best established by formally describing it then encouraging >>>>and describing the primary application which would use it. >>>>Other uses would be envisaged but not in detail since there >>>>would need to be scope for innovative use or reuse built into >>>>the way the standard is specified. I think 'levels' are just >>>>a type of profile - one where there is some linear scale >>>>linking the various profiles with scope for progressing from >>>>one to another with more and more development/complexity. >>>>I agree with David Marston's comment though >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag-comment/200708/msg00000.html >>>>It describes the use of 'levels' and I agree that there is >>>>scope to include this 'variability' in the profile - but not >>>>to address the layers of which David Pawson speaks which are >>>>the layers in the applications/business processes implementing >>>>the standard/profile/level. Each level/profile has to address >>>>each layer but the SBS tries to address all the layers in one go. >>>>This means the conformance clause being vague enough to do so. >>>>I don't think you can have one level (or profile) for each layer. >>>>But you would probably need one version of a test requirement >>>>and similarly one version of a test assertion (or set of them) >>>>for a particular layer or range of layers in the applications >>>>or for a particular type of application. Maybe there could one >>>>conformance clause for each of these ranges of layers or types >>>>of applications too. >>>> -- Stephen Green >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200708/msg00024.html >>>> >>>>---------- >>>> >>>>[1] EM CAP Profiles SC (postings by Rex Brooks and others) >>>> >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00007.html >>>> * >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00002.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00008.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00009.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00011.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00012.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00013.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00014.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00015.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00016.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00017.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00018.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00019.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00020.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00021.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00022.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200812/msg00024.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00005.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00006.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00007.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00008.html >>>> ->> ask-the-tab >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00009.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00010.html >>>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-cap-profiles/200901/msg00012.html >>>> >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>> >>>> - Robin >>>> >>>>Robin Cover >>>>OASIS, Director of Information Services >>>>Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink >>>>Email: robin@oasis-open.org >>>>Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover >>>>Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ >>>>Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html >>>>Tel: +1 972-296-1783 >>>> >>>> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>>>generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Rex Brooks >>>President, CEO >>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>Tel: 510-898-0670 >>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>>generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > >-- >Rex Brooks >President, CEO >Starbourne Communications Design >GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >Berkeley, CA 94702 >Tel: 510-898-0670 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]