[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (ICOM-17) 30-Day Public Review Comment 9

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ICOM-17?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=31084#action_31084 ] 

Patrick Durusau commented on ICOM-17:
-------------------------------------

Accept. Good point, extension should have a separate conformance clause, numbered no less.

> 30-Day Public Review Comment 9
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ICOM-17
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ICOM-17
>             Project: OASIS Integrated Collaboration Object Model for Interoperable Collaboration  Services (ICOM) TC 
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Eric Chan
>            Assignee: Patrick Durusau
>
> [Comment 9] : Section 5 Conformance: The rationale of "one or more extension modules" (at the user's choice)  in point #2 of conformance clause is  hard to understand.
> Sounds like a quantitative requirements to fulfill about a number of discrete functional capabilities that have nothing to do with each other 
> (how will that help me assess the level of ICOM compatibility of an implementation, or its functional scope if the implementation implements a different module compared to mine or to another?)
> In that case  why not define 2 levels of conformance: Core conformance level, then Extended conformance level (which involves 1 or more ext Modules).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira