[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement
We discussed it quite a bit. Liked the idea of something not too detailed and thought we would run it by Mary. That didn't go well per her note below and as far as I know there has been little discussion since. Elysa
At 08:27 PM 9/6/2007, Dwarkanath, Sukumar wrote:
Was any decision made re this, or did you get a chance to discuss this?
Thanks
Sukumar
From: Mary McRae [ mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:01 PM
To: 'Elysa Jones'
Cc: Dwarkanath, Sukumar; 'Rex Brooks'; 'Michelle Raymond'
Subject: RE: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement
While it probably meets the “letter of the law”, I’m not quite sure what “supports” really means and how someone would be able to determine whether or not their application truly conforms. I remember an earlier concern around CAP – someone stating that they implemented/were using CAP but they didn’t allow for one or more of the optional elements. The TC felt strongly that the implementation should not be able to say that it conformed to CAP. You want to make sure that the conformance statement covers exactly what it means to say your application conforms to the EDXL-HAVE specification, including specific references to other specifications and their versions as appropriate. I saw a mention of doing something really simple this time around and then working on it later, but that will then force another public review round. As always, I urge the TC to take the time to “get it right” now.
Of course the decision is up to the TC; as long as the conformance section meets the basic requirement I have no reason to hold it back.
All the best,
Mary
From: Elysa Jones [ mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Mary McRae
Cc: Dwarkanath, Sukumar; Rex Brooks; Michelle Raymond
Subject: EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement
Can you tell us if the following is sufficient for EDXL-HAVE conformance section? Elysa
4. CONFORMANCE
An implementation is a conforming EDXL-HAVE if the implementation meets the conditions in Section 4.1.
4.1 CONFORMANCE AS EDXL-HAVE
1. Supports the use of EDXL-DE, or a similar distribution element
2. Supports the syntax and semantics in the Data Dictionary (Sec 3.2)
3. Supports the defined EDXL-HAVE schema (attached artifact)
This electronic message transmission contains information from SRA International, Inc., which may be confidential, privileged or proprietary. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic information in error, please notify SRA immediately by telephone at 866-584-2143.
--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]