Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Summary and Focus?

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/19  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

> Let me give this a try.


> I don't think the TC will be testing anything, in terms of downloading
> vendor software, executing tests of it, score and officially reporting the
> results.  We're not proposing the creation of a testing lab or the creation
> of a certifying lab.  But we are creating assets that could be used by third
> party testing labs, or by implementors directly, to evaluate their
> conformance to the ODF standard, and to evaluate interoperability scenarios.

My term was a test specification. Stating what tests need to be
carried out. A deliverable.
(Item 3 below)

>
> What I am hearing in terms of deliverables include the following:
>
> 1) Researching the state of ODF interoperability today and issuing a report,
> with recommendations.  Update this report periodically.

+1 (bit fluffy Rob? How to firm it up?) - Heavy overlap with 8 below.

> 2) Researching the best practices in profiles, and issuing a "ODF Profiles
> Requirements" document

I'd like the TC to go further than this and define an appropriate
profiles list.

> 3) Creating an "ODF Conformance Test Requirements" document that details the
> exact items required to test conformance of an ODF document and of an ODF
> application to the ODF standard.

+1. Clarification. "exact items required" means how each atomic item
in the standard
is to be tested.

> 4) Creating an ODF Interoperability Test Requirements document that defines
> additional tests, including an Acid-like test and other interoperability
> tests.

-0 Until clarified. What does this mean? How is it different from 3?
We haven't come up with a definition of interop, how can we ask for it?
Suggest make it broader (as profiles).
Proposed "Define interoperability between similar ODF applications
(and documents?)
and propose suitable tests"


> 5) Create the actual ODF instance documents needed to meet the requirements
> of the Interoperability Test Requirements above.

-1. Rationale. Up to the test implementers. Test data really. You won't know
what is needed until you write the tests. Devious ..... could ensure an
implementation is good for these snippets (and no more). Test data
needs to be very carefully considered when writing tests.


> 6) Write profile of ODF to improve interoperability in specific areas.  I've
> heard ODF for archiving and ODF for web mentioned.

-1 We haven't clearly defined profiles. How can we require them,
how can Oasis test if we've got one back from the TC?
Bit like interop. Leave it up to the TC to define profiles and
produce an appropriate set of profiles of ODF, scoped to the latest
Oasis standard.



> 7) Write guidelines for ODF implementors on various topics, i.e., how to use
> the internationalization features of ODF.

-1. I think this workload would break the camels back. ODF implementation
is orthogonal to compliance and interop testing. If anything, this is a job
for the main TC. Weak testability is due to their work. Let them fix it.

This has nothing to do with compliance and interop. Hence my
proposal to reduce the TC name.





> 8) Write a report on best practices in creating interoperable documents with
> ODF.

-1 as is. I want the TC to research interop, produce a definition scoped
to ODF apps and documents and then let the main TC know what they have
to do to improve it. Suggest this topic be changed into the feedback to
the main TC.


> 9) Unspecified deliverables on improving interoperability with other markup
> languages, e.g., DITA, OOXML.


-10. Out of scope. Make a clear scope statement that this TC shall remain
within the scope of the latest Oasis standard. Interop between ODF apps
and via ODF docs.


>
> There may be some others (I need to go through the list traffic again), but
> does that list give you a better idea?

If I make time today I'll trawl the 350 emails to do that too.
Pity the archives aren't retrievable as a text file (are they?)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/



>
>> If we can determine this "focus", the discussion will be much more
>> concise and directed (I believe).


Would you do the same on scope please Rob. I take focus and
scope to be the same thing?





regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk