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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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

Subject: RE: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - Application vs. Implementation re specifications

For me, confusing application of an instrument and the implementation of
that instrument impoverishes the language we require in order to be clear
about standards for artifacts and behaviors realized with computer software.
(I.e., the software is not the application of the user, it might be an
implementation of a specification.  I notice that IP language refers to
implementation of specifications too.)  And, fortunately, we don't have to
align on that, although I am not sure what alternative terminology affords
the distinctions I see and want to speak carefully about.  

I am completely aligned with the importance of profiling a standard that is
normatively incorporated by reference and where that standard has provisions
for adaptation/customization in an application (the typical phrasing in the
specifications I had been looking at).  I think a problem that we have in
the current ODF specifications and heavy incorporation of other standards by
reference is the omission of profiling and leaving qualifications to tacit

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 08:30
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - Application vs. Implementation re

[ ... ]

 Application-defined (synonymous with implementation-defined) -- 
parameters of a standard that are defined and documented by the product 
that conforms to the standard.  In other words, the standard does not 
specify the behavior, but the implementation does. 

[ ... ]

The use of in one standard of another standard as a whole, is just a 
normative external reference.  But if you use another standard in part, or 
with qualification, then the definition of how that other standard works 
in your standard is a "profile" of the other standard.

It would certainly be a good thing if, anywhere we we include a standard, 
but with some qualification of it, that we consistently indicate how we 
are profiling that other standard.


"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/07/2009 
06:48:23 PM:
> Um, implementation-specific and application-specific are different for 
[ ... ]

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