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: [office] Re: [office-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements


To jump to final question:

> Sharing thinking and testing understanding does not seem to me to be an
> inappropriate use of the ODF TC List.  Don't you do that too?  
Certainly and I do value your observations, for the most part anyway. ;-)

However, when you say that the current draft fails to meet the current 
conformance guidelines and point to same, how does that help me with 
editing the text?

At this stage of the editing I personally think it is premature to start 
worrying about the details on conformance statements, particularly when, 
as I observed in a JIRA issue last night, we use but don't define 
"settlement" in the financial functions.

Before we can talk about conformance clauses I think we need to have 
adequately defined all those things to which we want to specify 

It is a question of emphasis and not intent. All concerns, both large 
and small must be addressed.

I suppose in part my reaction to your more sweeping concerns was from 
having spent all day in the details of a fairly small set of functions. ;-)

Hope you are at the start of a great day!


Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Patrick,
> I believe I answered the question that I was asked by Andreas with
> sufficient rationale (and supporting material) to explain the basis for that
> answer.  (Whether that is necessary rationale, I don't know, but I am not
> sure how much we are all up to speed on the procedures and the conformance
> guidelines that figure in them.)
> I shared that rationale with others (especially you editors) because it
> strikes me as worthy of discussion as a matter of principle before
> undertaking actions to fulfill on such principles.  I gather you find that
> unwelcome for the reasons you give.
> I understand and accept your observations considering how we put in the
> necessary rigor around the bit-wise logical operations and others in
> OpenFormula.  I also accept that specific, precise proposals on JIRA are
> called for.
> In fact, in the post that Andreas was asking about and quoted from, 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00058.html>, 
> my #1 statement was that the issues should be raised and dealt with on JIRA.
> That I provided some analysis of my own about stumbling blocks and
> appropriate rigor along with an extended PS was my sharing of my thinking on
> the matter.  I understand that there is different work required in arriving
> at specific proposals and their resolution on JIRA and my analysis was not
> meant to short-circuit that in any way.
> Also, my appraisal of the use of (1) conformance language and (2) my
> additional observations/questions about the tight definition of bit-wise
> logical operations tied to OpenFormula Number types were two very different,
> mainly orthogonal concerns.  
> I apologize if that was not clear in my writing about them on the same
> thread.  My observations about (2) are independent of my observations about
> (1).  My observations of kind (2) were specifically about the bit-wise
> logical operations, using BITAND as one case and I agree that the conditions
> should be isolated and stated in one place.  Although I also think that this
> kind of thinking applies to other OpenFormula provisions (e.g., with regard
> to Boolean values as single true/false indicators, with some of my personal
> thought on the matter appearing at
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00038.html>),
> I thought I had carefully limited my analysis to the bit-wise logical values
> in the messages you are reacting to.  
> Sharing thinking and testing understanding does not seem to me to be an
> inappropriate use of the ODF TC List.  Don't you do that too?  
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00117.html
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 14:50
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: 'Andreas J Guelzow'; office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org; ODF TC List;
> David A. Wheeler; 'Eike Rathke'
> Subject: [office] Re: [office-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements
> Dennis,
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00113.html
>> [cc: to main list because this matters very much there too.]
> Yes, but I have not seen a single sentence that I could either support 
> or object to for inclusion in the OpenFormula draft.
> I freely grant that the OpenFormula text needs work, that is why I am 
> editing on it, but that isn't an invitation to sweeping declarations 
> about the current texts and debates on meta-questions about conformance.
> If you don't think we have stated the requirement for support of 48 bit 
> parameters properly, say so and then suggest text that fixes what you 
> see as the problem. Telling me that it fails your personal reading of 
> suggestions on conformance may be interesting but not terribly useful. 
> At least with specific language that you find problematic and/or 
> proposed replacement text the members of the OpenFormula SC or the ODF 
> TC can say whether they agree, disagree, etc. That is something I can 
> then incorporate into the current draft.
> For example, Andreas made it clear that *all* implementations must 
> support 48 bit parameters.
> That means to me that:
> 1) It is a requirement that all implementations that claim to conform to 
> OpenFormula must support so it should not be buried in some section of 
> the draft.
> 2) That a properly drafted conformance clause will say (it doesn't exist 
> yet) that all implementations shall support 48 bit parameters but may 
> support longer parameters. (Leaving open the question if we define what 
> happens if a longer parameter is passed about, open to *concrete* 
> suggestions on that point.)
> If you want to object that we have not defined what is meant by 48 bit 
> parameter, possibly a valid objection, then say that. And then suggest, 
> define it this way (here statement of 48 (or other) bit parameter).
> Note that following that process will focus both comments and responses. 
> Not to mention getting us closer to a draft that does in fact meet the 
> OASIS requirements.
> Sorry if that sounds a bit short but if we are going to revise and 
> proceed with the OpenFormula text, we need to isolate *specific* issues 
> and propose *specific* language to resolve those same issues.
> Hope you are having a great day!
> Patrick
>> Andreas, 
>> It is my understanding that neither statement satisfies the OASIS
> guidelines
>> for conformance and normative statements.
>> That is, unless "implementation" is an identified conformance target in
> the
>> Conformance section of the specification.  (Apparently, "implementation"
>> does not imply "conformant implementation" in OASIS parlance, and
>> "conformant implementation" is not a conformance target unless such is
>> defined in the conformance section.) 
>> I don't believe that is the case at this time.  Now, it is also the case
>> that the ODF 1.2 draft has not been moved to the latest template with
>> inclusion of a conformance section that's been reviewed to satisfy the
>> current OASIS guidelines.
>> For those who are curious what that entails, I recommend review of the
>> following document:
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html>
>> .  Perhaps the most important part of the guideline document is the
>> checklist in the final section.  For me, this makes the intent and the
>> satisfaction of that intent very clear.  The examples and then the
>> nomenclature differences between normative statements, conformance
> clauses,
>> and conformance targets can be explored for deeper understanding.
>> The Conformance Guidelines are referenced directly from the 2009-10-28
>> Templates and Guidelines page, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/>,
>> directly from the OASIS Specification QA Checklist,
>> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/QAChecklistV2.html> at the end, and
>> indirectly in the OASIS Technical Committee Process that went into effect
> on
>> 2009-09-01, <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php> second
>> paragraph of section 2.18 and of material importance in the definition of
>> "Statement of Use" in Section 1 item (ai).
>>  - Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andreas J Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca] 
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00059.html
>> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:17
>> To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [office-formula] BITAND
>> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:04 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00058.html
>>> (In this regard, I
>>> emphatically disagree with the PS in the note from Andreas, and I believe
>>> the OASIS conformance guidelines are also in conflict with that PS.)
>> Dennis,
>> could you explain to me what you see as the difference between the
>> following two statements (in the context of the OpenFormula
>> specification):
>> 1) To comply with this specification, an implementation *shall* support
>> parameters of at least 48 bits.
>> 2) An implementation *shall* support parameters of at least 48 bits.
>> Andreas

Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) 

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