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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

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

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] OASIS Guidelines to Writing Conformance Clauses

--- On Mon, 6/23/08, robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
> Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] OASIS Guidelines to Writing Conformance Clauses
> To: oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 1:21 PM
> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote
> on 06/23/2008 10:21:59 AM:
> > 
> > Which ought to put this lists discussions on hold
> OASIS defines the meta requirements for OASIS standards,
> and the ODF TC 
> implements these meta requirements.  Our proposed TC will
> need to follow 
> these same meta requirements when we define conformance
> clauses in our 
> profiles.  So it applies to our deliverables in that way as
> well.

From http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html :
>> ... OASIS specifications SHOULD use the following keywords from IETF RFC 2119. This is the default terminology to be used in all OASIS specifications. The definitions from RFC 2119 are given below, and have been simplified to highlight all the keywords:

and later:
>> Some OASIS specifications are intended for advancement to other bodies such as ISO/IEC and ITU-T. In those cases it is permissible to use the ISO keywords instead of the default RFC 2119 ones. A specification that makes use of ISO keywords MUST explicitly declare this in the specification.

So my question is, are we using the default rfc2119 which we "should" use, or are we using the ISO/IEC definitions which could apply to an ODF intended to become an ISO standard, and which we would then have to "explicitly declare"?

Though the ODF TC words ODF, we (ie, the proposed TC) pen the testing guide so might need to know (or benefit from knowing) the context.

> Since we are focusing on defining the assessment of
> conformance, there is 
> ample work for us there.   And don't forget that
> interoperability is a 
> much wider discussion than conformance.  I think there has
> been inordinate 
> focus on conformance under the mistaken impression that
> this was some sort 
> of stick that could be wielded against the "big
> vendors".  But I think the 
> proposed TC's most valuable contributions will be on
> interoperability 
> tests, which we can define on top of conformance tests.

Dave's progress through the ODF spec has shown that a moving target as well as open-endedness can make it difficult to detail tests.

Also, in collaborating with the ODF TC and in pointing out problems to them, I think that offering up the occasional suggested solution would be useful since in some cases the suggestions might be uncontroversial in their essence and allow us to continue detailing tests (going back if the suggestions are materially rejected). In some cases, we might benefit (save time) in assuming an issue will be resolved in what might be a straightforward manner.

More importantly, it can also be healthy in writing up tests to, ourselves, consider various possible resolutions to problematic wording. We might actually be in the best position to make a specific wording recommendation to the main TC.

[Dave, as you noted here http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00638.html "*suggestions*" is the more accurate term.]


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