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] Use Case

Marketing and PR should not be confused with support of specifications!!!
OASIS has very clear rules on who gets to brag about implementing solutions! ; -)
Once a specification is approved - then a press release is issued - and at that point paying member companies and sponsor companies get to work with OASIS on statements in that press release.
So it really is not up to the TC at all to get into any measuring or claims exercise.  If some company wants to make claims - that is up to them and their legal department - and of course their customers - who may contract with them.
Now - from a technical stance - we can publish XSD and CAM templates and expect folks to use them to verify their solutions - but beyond that it then passes to an entirely different task - one that you may setup a test and conformance group to do separately - or companies may get together and mutually issue such statements.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [emergency] Use Case
From: Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>
Date: Thu, April 17, 2008 10:29 am
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org

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: 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: RequestResource >
ResponseToRequestResource >
RequisitionResource >
CommitResource >

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.

Elysa Jones
Warning Systems, Inc.

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