RE: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: RE: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement

Hi Alessandro, Sukumar,

I obviously agree with Alessandro, who beat me to the metaphorical punch. However, I would restrict the targets to implementations and tools, and not to messages, servers, clients or processes (especially processes for reasons I hope we can capture in the meeting notes I mentioned.). I think those target "types" are too granular and set a precedent for the extent to which we indicate we are willing to go.

I wouldn't mind getting that granular if we had the resources to support it, as we might eventually through the Adoption SC and the Member Section. It could be very helpful, and short circuit a lot of potential problems but we have to weigh it against the resources we have available now.

Thanks Alessandro, you brought out a specific issue that we now actually have a thread to cover an issue with.

Cheers,

Rex

At 10:57 AM -0400 8/31/07, Dwarkanath, Sukumar wrote:

> Alessandro,
>  
> Good point - I agree with you. We need to identify the
> conformance targets - I just left it generic (hence, implementation)
> - and then outline the clauses for each target. As you point out, it
> is time and process intensive and will involve some effort. My thought
> was to use keep it high level for now and put some thought into the
> next version, but I am open to other suggestions as
> wellŠ
>  
> As a FYI, I am out next week Š
>  
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Sukumar
>  
>  
>

---

> From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@oss.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:36 PM
> To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE - Conformance
> Statement
>  
> Hi Sukumar,
>  
> I understand it may be
> difficult to retrofit a conformance section into an existing
> specification.
>  
> I just wonder if we really have only one
> conformance target ("implementation") for this standard. 
> Is there any concept of something else other than an
> "implementation" that could be the target of
> conformance for this standard?  Say, a "message", a
> "server", a "client", a "process",
> etc.?  Would the conformance requirements be the same for all
> targets?
>  
> If it is too difficult to introduce
> such distinctions at this stage, then maybe we shouldn't bother--it
> can be done more thoughtfully in the next version.
>  
> Alessandro

 

 

---

From: Dwarkanath, Sukumar [mailto:Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 17:15
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE - Conformance Statement

All,

 

I found out that we need to include a conformance statement as part of new TC process - attached is a document that was sent by OASIS staff. Based on the document, I have created a first draft (copied below). I have also added it to the word document and have posted it to the repository.

 

Please review and let me know if you have any edits/changes. I am waiting for a reply on how this would impact the process i.e. if we need to again vote it as a CD etc.

 

 

Thanks

 

Sukumar

 

 

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

 

1.  4.  CONFORMANCE

 

An implementation is a conforming EDXL-HAVE if the implementation meets the conditions in Section 4.1.

 

1.                      4.1           CONFORMANCE AS EDXL-HAVE

 

1.             1.       Supports the use of EDXL-DE, or a similar distribution element

2.             2.       Supports the syntax and semantics in the Data Dictionary (Sec 3.2)

3.             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.

 

--

Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670