[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] interop profile or interop advisories ?
Bart, I hadn't considered the question of naming until it came up on the last call. I think more discussion is warranted. We probably need to determine how many of us this is a concern for. I repeat what I had said during the previous call. I am not going to filibuster this issue. I appreciate that you want a broader consensus. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and play the hand we're dealt. Thanks for asking around. - Dennis - - - - - - - - - - - - - Standards are arbitrary solutions to recurring problems (R. W. Bemer) Although not by becoming the recurring problem (orcmid). When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. THINKING OUT LOUD 1. "Interop Advisories" is a new idea and I don't know that we have thought it through, including whatever the workflow is, where/how they would be published, accompanying material, etc. 2. Although "Interop Profile" seems benign, maybe we should hold that term back for specific profiles that are focused on a more-closely-defined theme, such as the work Svante proposed on images, the on-again-off-again addressing of packages, document authenticity and confidentiality (that could be an interesting theme), and so on. It might be how advisories become embraced in recommended practices when a particular interoperability theme is addressed. We could also reserve "Interop Practices for Such-and-Such" but that might be better retained for what Rob is looking at in terms of how users can achieve interoperability and, secondarily, how implementers could encourage such practices. 3. I note that we have wandered a long way from the notion of test guidance for assessing conformance and interoperability. Perhaps something that would go with a profile is ways of demonstrating adherence or lack thereof. (I don't know if Test Assertions work here, but it is a reasonable question.) 4. Finally, my main concern has been that the current Interop Profile document specifies a blanket conformance requirement for a rather incoherent collection of provisions, and it just seems awkward and not that helpful. It is the conformance language that has been my main concern. I think it is premature to do that without use in practice and understanding of what works and what does not, as well as being careful to have something measurable. I have not revised the sentiment in my previous ballot comments, <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/vote_details.php?id=1827&v oter_id=10903>. 5. An afterthought. Sometimes, it is necessary to try something out in order to see that it isn't accomplishing what was desired, or even to see, as the result of experience, that a different course is needed. I don't know that applies here, but it might be that is what there is to learn in this case -- sort of, "Oh, now I see what should be done" that wasn't seen until going down this particular road. -----Original Message----- From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 01:19 To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org; Cherie Ekholm Subject: RE: [oic] interop profile or interop advisories ? Hi, any further comments on "interop advisories" vs "interop profile" ? If the proposed "interop advisories" do not address the concerns raised by the TC Members (wrt the "interop profile"), I just drop the idea altogether and continue to work on the "interop profile" in its current form... Best regards Bart [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]