RE: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiling for Interoperability

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I see from Dave's comments that I need to clarify a couple of items.

1. INTERCHANGE-AGREEMENT PROFILES (or whatever better name works - "document application profile" has been used for similar purposes in the distant past, but I don't want to prejudice thinking with that particular approach).

1.1 Considering application profiles as artifacts that can be used to (1) express the capabilities that an interchange agreement depends on and (2) delimits the features that may be used in having documents that are eligible for interchange in a given interoperability regime, I am imagining something akin (but not necessarily the same as) templates that travel with a document and may well be contained in the document structure.  This is so honoring of the agreement embodied in the profile is sustained by mechanical means.

1.2 Because of the necessarily-intimate connection of this kind of feature with the definition of the document format itself, I would expect that providing a standard interoperability-agreement profile mechanism would have to be incorporated in the document-format specification, at least as a supplementary capability.  That is what had me think this is more for the document-format technical committee rather than the OIC, although OIC might provide important foundation as part of its more-generic conformance and interoperability exploration.  

1.3 I'm not fussy about this.  I am not disturbed that it be out of scope for OIC.  I simply want to raise a cautionary consideration against cutting oneself off from the OIC work being evolvable toward such a capability by someone.  

1.4 Because this is about implementation of a kind, I disagree with Dave.  I think OIC might inform such a development but that its provision is out of scope and its institutionalization would be a matter for the ODF TC to the extent that the document format must enable it.  I think I failed to indicate how much I envisioned that processor implementation would be impacted by normative requirements and supporting markup.

2.  PROCESSORS AS VALIDATORS/DEMONSTRATORS OF CONFORMANCE AND INTEROPERABILITY

2.1 I said, "In contrast, one could have guidelines on how a product could facilitate its mechanized conformance testing, including how deviations, extensions, and limitations are handled and accounted for.  This could remain separate from the definition of the OpenDocument Format.  Were there such arrangements, they might provide a different avenue for profile-honoring as well."

2.2 When I wrote this full statement, I was envisioning some way that interchange-agreement profiling might arise that did not require work at the ODF TC.  I wasn't considering whether it would be in-scope for OIC.  I was careless there. 

2.3 It struck me since that an interesting reference implementation would be one that was incorporated in an automated conformance and interoperability confirmation fixture and that demonstrated how a product might support its own validation in this way, too.  

2.4 I do not envision such a fixture being in scope for OIC.  I agree with Dave in that regard. 

 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200808/msg00007.html
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 23:58
To: OIIC Formation Discuss
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiling for Interoperability

2008/8/10 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200808/msg00006.html

[ ... ]
>
> This leads, in my understanding, to the need for some sort of profiling, where a community of practice could agree on the details of behavioral conformance required for successful interchange in an interoperability situation.  It then becomes an interesting matter to consider whether such a community has technical means to ensure that the boundaries of the profile are not exceeded when using any qualified products and when creating documents or receiving them.
[ ... ]
>
> I suspect that this kind of interoperability profile is far beyond conformance assessment and declaration, yet it is relevant to providing assurance among product adopters that the documents they produce are interchangeable in the expected context and the requisite interoperability scenario is satisfied.  Since this is generally unexplored territory, it is interesting to know how much its consideration would be in scope for OIIC at some level.
[ ... ]
>
> I looked through the discussion archives and I notice that this sense of profile is somewhat different than the use that has been given with regard to leveling of conformance, even for vertical situations.  I am thinking of provisions that would have adopters of the format be in control of their profile agreement and have technical means to make it real.
[ ... ]
>
> I am thinking that it takes advances in the ODF specification to provide for this.   A format for specifying a profile, for interchange with or as part of an ODF document, would more likely be the responsibility of the ODF TC.

I'd prefer the iic TC to do that.
* ---------------------------- (see 1.4, above)

>
> In contrast, one could have guidelines on how a product could facilitate its mechanized conformance testing,

And a lot more.

> including how deviations, extensions, and limitations are handled and accounted for.

You just went out of scope.
* ------------------------- (see 2.4, above)

[ ... ]