RE: [emergency] Use Case

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Good argument, and for now, I have to agree, but I'm reading the 
document Mary referred to see what it says about any possible 
difference or distinction between conformace in what is implemented 
and how much of a specification needs to be implemented.

Cheers,
Rex

At 11:07 AM -0400 4/17/08, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>In my view this is straightforward.  The statement of use should be strictly
>based upon the conformance clause.  We can't set requirements for a
>statement of use that are more stringent than the conformance requirements
>specified in the standard itself. 
>
>If the conformance section of a standard says that an implementation "X" is
>conformant if and only if it does "Y", then all that the statement of use
>really needs to say is something like, "Here is an implementation X of this
>standard, which I certify to be conformant to the standard". 
>
>If the standard specifies multiple conformance targets, the statement of use
>needs to say which target is being referred to.
>
>If the standard specifies multiple conformance classes or levels, the
>statement of use needs to say which conformance class or conformance level
>is being referred to.
>
>In other words, in my view, a statement of use should simply state that the
>OASIS member organization has created an implementation of a standard and
>should contain a conformance claim about that implementation.  Like any
>other conformance claim, that conformance claim should simply and very
>clearly reference the particular conformance target, conformance class,
>conformance level, and any conformance options that are specified in the
>standard (if any).
>
>The conformance section of RM (as of today) doesn't say that implementations
>must support a complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment.
>Therefore we cannot impose that kind of requirement on the statement of use.
>If the TC believes that all implementations of RM should really support a
>complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment, then we should
>change the standard to specify that requirement either in the conformance
>section or elsewhere.
>
>Alessandro
>
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
>>  Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30
>>  To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>>  Subject: [emergency] Use Case
>>
>>  TC Members,
>>
>>  We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what
>>  constitutes a "Use case" in our Standards.  Most of you have
>>  been aware of this topic but we have not nailed down a
>>  position.  We must do this before we can make the big push to
>>  get use cases for HAVE and RM. 
>>
>>  This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday.  There
>>  are several EIC members that know of companies that may want
>>  to be the first or one of the first to advertise such a use
>>  case.  We need to give them specific wording on what
>>  constitutes this "use".  OASIS requires the statement to be
>>  in agreement with the conformance clause of the
>>  specification.  We as a TC can cause this to be more or less
>>  stringent and there are schools of thought on both. 
>>
>>  Please review the two positions on the matter identified
>>  below and respond to the list on your preference.  Although
>>  this does not require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make
>>  sure we have a good understanding and consensus on how we proceed.
>>
>>  Position 1:
>>
>>  *	Comply with the full element reference model - required
>>  elements at a minimum.  If a message is sent that complies
>>  with the ERM, then you can be compliant with any of the
>>  specific messages.
>>  *	Deliver a RequestResource message and a
>>  ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 messages).
>>
>>  If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use
>>  and getting the standard out the door, this should be the
>>  minimum requirement.
>>
>>  Position 2:
>>
>>  *	Agreed with position 1
>>  *	A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource
>>  Deployment should be the minimum:
>  >
>>  RequestResource >
>>  ResponseToRequestResource >
>>  RequisitionResource >
>>  CommitResource >
>>  ReleaseResource.
>>
>>  The messages about the deployment, requesting information,
>>  release, etc are not necessary, just the 5 listed.
>>
>>  NOW - please make your comments to the list.  The Mst/Not SC
>>  will schedule a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to
>>  discuss.  From this a recommendation will be made.  Respond
>>  to this message too with which date and what times you would
>>  be available.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Elysa Jones
>>  Chair, OASIS EM-TC
>>  CTO/COO
>>  Warning Systems, Inc.
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and 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