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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

obix message

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

Subject: RE: [obix] Timeslines



Are things in a consistent enough state that it would be worth-while for me to make a diff between 01 and 02, to see the differences?


We might prefer what you have done to what was, but it needs to be clearly shown.






"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well "    -- Peter Drucker

Toby Considine
TC9, Inc

OASIS TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar

OASIS TC Editor: EMIX, Energy Interoperation

SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee


Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Phone: (919)619-2104

blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com


From: obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Markus Jung
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:20 PM
To: obix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [obix] Timeslines


I just uploaded the following files in the member section:

OBIX-Encodings-v1.0-wd01.doc --> XML, oBIX Binary
OBIX-REST-v1.0-wd01 --> HTTP Binding
OBIX-SOAP-v1.0-wd02 --> SOAP Binding, reverted to the state of 1.1 WD 07.

These documents are a nearly one to one copy of the according chapters in the current WD 07 working draft.
I just replaced a reference to a core document chapter and updated the link to the WS Interoperability Reference, regarding the security for the SOAP binding.

If Craig removes these chapters from the core 1.1 working draft, we would have a consistent state.

As mentioned before, I reverted all my changes/enhancements for the SOAP binding and added no new binding or encoding. So it should be "easy" to approve the current state. Once the existing 1.1 bindings and encodings are approved I will work on the modifications (SOAP) and enhancements (CoAP, EXI, JSON).

I added myself as editor for the REST bindings, I hope this is ok.


Am 26.03.2013 16:05, schrieb Considine, Toby:

Sounds like we should proceed as Markus suggested post haste to clean up the conformance issues.


Other thoughts:


The first Public Review takes a minimum of 30 days. The TC MAY ask for longer.

Subsequent Public Reviews can be as short as 15 days.


1.1   is a new work product, so *that* PR WILL take at least 30 days



To me , the question is can we get PRs for the encodings and bindings out before the PR for 1.1 is done. I think we can.



"When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us."

-- Alexander Graham Bell

Toby Considine


Editor, OASIS EMIX, Energy Interoperation
Campus Services Information Technology
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC


Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073



From: obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Bogen, Chris ERDC-RDE-ITL-MS
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:50 AM
To: obix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [obix] Checking Conformance Clauses (UNCLASSIFIED)


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

I reviewed the OASIS Conformance Guidelines (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html#_Toc170119665) and have provided my response to checklist items in bullets under the numbered checklist items.




Conformance Checklist

  1. Are you using the right keywords from RFC 2119, and in uppercase?
    • YES
  1. If you are using ISO keywords, have you explicitly stated this in the specification ?
    • N/A
  1. Have you defined your Conformance Target(s)?
    • Yes – implicit through statements of “conforming oBIX Client” or “conforming oBIX server”
  1. Are all Normative Statements clearly identifiable?
    • YES
  1. Are all Normative Statements understandable, clear, and concise?
    • YES with one exception (20.1.2 (line 2699) “An implementation MUST return values according to the rules defined in Clause 4.  “  Where is Clause 4?)
  1. Are all Normative Statements referenced directly or indirectly from a Conformance Clause?
    • Yes, but recommend numbering the normative statements in each conformance clause section and providing a one sentence introduction before the normative statements (e.g. The oBIX server MUST meet the following conditions to satisfy the Lobby Conformance Clause:…)
  1. Note: A Normative Statement that is not related to any Conformance Clause has no meaning
  2. Is each Normative Statement related to a Conformance Target(s)?
    • Yes, they are in sub-sections of conformance clauses
  1. Is there a separate section containing the Conformance Clauses?
    • Yes, Section 20.1 and 20.2
  1. Are all Conformance Clauses clearly identifiable?
    • Yes, there are subsections for each conformance clause.  Though they are not explicitly identified as “Conformance Clauses,” the symbolism is implicit
  1. Are all Conformance Clauses understandable, clear, and concise?
    • YES but see #5
  1. Are the top-level Conformance Clauses clearly identified and related to a Conformance Target?
    • Yes
  1. Is the relationship between all Conformance Clauses clearly defined using combinations of combined, alternative, level and profile styles?
    • Yes
  1. Are all Conformance Clauses either top-level or referenced directly or indirectly from a top-level Conformance Clause?
    • Implicity, yes, through statements such as “An implementation conforms to this specification as an oBIX Server if it meets the conditions described in the following subsections.”  It is recommended that “the following subsections) be directly referenced (e.g. …the conditions described in Sections 20.1.1, 20.1.2, and 20.1.3)
  1. Note: A Conformance Clause that is not related to any top-level Conformance Clause has no meaning.
  2. Are there any contradictions between Normative Statements on the one hand and a Conformance Clause and any referenced Conformance Clauses on the other hand? If there are, have these been explicitly noted and have any rules to over-ride the contradictions been made
    • It depends on what encodings we include in 1.1.  The statement, “An implementation SHOULD support the XML encoding,” (lines 2694-2695 and 2709-2709) may be invalid if there are no other alternatives in which case the implementation MUST support the XML encoding



Chris Bogen, Ph.D.

Computer Scientist

US Army Corps of Engineers

Engineer Research Development Center

Vicksburg, MS


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Dipl.-Ing. Markus Jung
Research Assistant
Tel. +43 1 58801-18322
Fax +43 1 58801-18391
Institute of Computer Aided Automation
Treitlstr. 1-3/4. Stock/E183-1
Vienna University of Technology

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