[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [obix] Obix 1.1 and Interoperation and Conformance
|
As far as I can tell, it is not technically out of
conformance. But I think it certainly is information that should be
included if it's there. If you have metadata, you should include it.
I'm not sure exactly how you specify that in the contract, but it's easy enough
to say it in the text.
From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:42 PM To: Brian Frank; Toby.Considine@gmail.com Cc: obix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [obix] Obix 1.1 and Interoperation and Conformance Does
this mean the current implementation as per the link is out of conformance, or
should be out of conformance…. Indelicate
way to answer the question, I know… "A
man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but
saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday." --
Jonathan Swift
From: Brian Frank
[mailto:brian.tridium@gmail.com] In the case of units for history,
that is pretty straight forward - either the HistoryRecord or its prototype
should specify a unit facet (assuming the system in question has one
configured). On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@gmail.com>
wrote: When we started the unfinished 1.1, one of the issues was increasing
conformance requirements. DO we think we have gotten all of
those? My mind went to this because of the following link I saw this
morning
"Energy and persistence conquer all things." --
Benjamin Franklin
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]