Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Features, abstract features, and precise element semantics to limit lock-in

[jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com>]

--- On Mon, 6/23/08, jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [oiic-formation-discuss] Features, abstract features, and precise element semantics to limit lock-in
> To: oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 11:43 PM
> --- 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] Deliverable:
> odf-diff?
> > To: oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 11:49 AM
> > Radoslav Dejanović
> <radoslav.dejanovic@opsus.hr>
> > wrote on 06/23/2008 
> > 05:41:10 AM:
> > 
> > > Dave Pawson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > An app that doesn't implement a
> 'may'
> > clause isn't at fault
...
> What is not mentioned here is "if *abstract feature* x
> is implemented in profile Y, it must be implemented using
> the feature X of profile Y." The point here would be
> to define "abstract feature" at a high level
> while "feature" is defined as a set of XML
> components with associated semantics. The idea would be to
> say (to use an example of a paragraph) "if paragraphs
> are implemented in ODF/core, they must be implemented using
> the text:p feature of ODF/core."
...
> If we combine these two items: stating that paragraphs must
> be implemented as text:p and stating that text:p must only
> include paragraphs; then we have a clear rule for catching
> a large number of attempts to violate the rules for
> lock-in.
> 
> Note the difference with how ODF stands now. The abstract
> concept of a paragraph is not clearly defined nor used
> within any constraint, either to say that a
> "paragraph" must use text:p, or that text:p must
> contain nothing but a single "paragraph". [At
> least I don't think I came across this in skimming ODF
> 1.1]
...
> Those writing the official standard must always determine
> how much to enshrine and how much to leave to third
> parties. I think the more items, well thought out and well
> worded, that we can add to ODF, the more useful it will be
> in the marketplace since more groups will be able to build
> business around it, have confidence in it, have it perform
> to expectations, etc.

I realized after sending off the parent email that this thread http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00647.html is realted to the idea of specifying features fully but without using formal language.

Arguably it's doable though not sure how the lack of formality might interplay with third party accreditation groups and others. See also: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00678.html