OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [emergency] Statement of Use


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:52
> To: Elysa Jones
> Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [emergency] Statement of Use
> Elysa,
> OASIS changed the rules here from previously - when ANY 
> statement of use was acceptable.
> Now they want some level of conformance clauses in the 
> specification itself.
> "
> A specification that is approved by the TC at the Public 
> Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level 
> must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered 
> conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the 
> specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to 
> the specification (or any optional portion thereof).* 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#transition_2_18>  
> "
> They have some samples of such conformance clauses they have in mind.
> I'm inclined to agree with Rex - that creating actual XML 
> instances for your own use purposes - coupled with validation 
> and documentation that forinstance a CAM template can then 
> enforce against those samples - should cover off a use 
> statement - in that this shows that the specification 
> actually works for a real scenario.

We have a conformance section in this standard.  It says, more or less, that
a conforming "HAVE report" is an XML document that validates against the
HAVE schema and meets the additional requirements in the standard, and a
conforming "HAVE report producer" is a software entity that produces a
conforming report when it is expected to do so.  (It doesn't matter how such
an expectation is set and how the report is produced and made available.)
So I think that a statement of use from an organization should say,
essentially, that that organization has been able to implement a conforming
producer.  The actual form of the producer doesn't matter.


> I believe that is the most important thing these statements 
> provide - is that people know the specification has actually 
> been tried in practice - rather than just being entirely theoretical.
> Thanks, DW

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]