I agree with Bryan. This approach also has precedent, at
least in WS-BPEL 2.0. It uses RFC 2119, but it also uses lowercase “may”
in a way that has nothing to do with interoperability of implementations that
don’t implement optional features (the way the 2119 “may”
does). As an experiment, take a look at WS-BPEL 2.0
and search for “may”. You should find 171 occurances. Pick
through a few of those and imagine rewording all of them in a way that does not
use any of the 2119 terms.
Michael
From: Bryan
Aupperle [mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007
3:42 PM
To:
opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [opencsa-liaison] Use
of "may", "must", etc.
A couple of examples we have come across so far:
Service
interfaces may be annotated to specify whether their contract is
conversational, as described in the Assembly Specification [ASSEMBLY] using the
@Conversational annotation.
Note
for C++, annotations are currently anticipated to be processed by tools so
annotated source, in and of itself, does not force any behavior on anything
other than a annotation processor. The conversational intent in the SCDL
is what is meaningful. Thus use of "MAY" is not appropriate
here. Replacing "may" with "can" is not grammatically
correct.
The
data exchange semantics for calls to local services is by-reference. This means that code
must be written with the knowledge that changes made to parameters (other than
simple types) by either the client or the provider of the service can be
seen by the other.
This
is not really a compliance point (I would not expect a test for it) but clearly
guidance to someone reading the specification intending to implement
components. Removal or "must" is awkward and other options are
wordier.
Bryan
Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Master Inventor
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
|
"Patil, Sanjay"
<sanjay.patil@sap.com>
12/04/2007 10:34 AM
|
|
To
|
<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Bryan
Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
|
cc
|
<opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [opencsa-liaison] Use of "may",
"must", etc.
|
|
If we did that (that is treat the terms in
lower-case differently from
their upper-case version), then our specs can not
claim full compliance
with RFC 2119, since RFC 2119 does not
differentiate the key words based
on their case. The problem with invoking RFC 2119
only for upper-case
keywords would be that - we might be upsetting a
lot of readers out
there who have by now started expecting a full
compliance with RFC 2119.
Bryan, could you give us one or two examples of the awkwardness
you
faced while substituting the RFC terms? Perhaps we
can just identify the
common situations of such awkwardness and try to
come up with some
alternative terms that can be uniformly used by
all the SCA specs.
-- Sanjay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ashok malhotra
[mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, Dec 04, 2007 6:32 AM
> To: Bryan Aupperle
> Cc: opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison] Use of
"may", "must", etc.
>
> Hi Bryan:
> I agree that this is a problem. My
alternate proposal is that the
> upper-case words indicate the RFC 2119
keywords and the
> lower-case words
> indicate normal English usage. But not
everyone likes this solution.
>
> Bryan Aupperle wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe all of the TCs have adopted
use of RFC 2119 keywords in
> > uppercase only and to not use the
keywords in lower-case
> form at all,
> > using synonyms when necessary. We
have started scrubbing
> the C++ spec
> > to eliminate use of "may",
"must", etc. and found that some rather
> > awkward language can result Has
anyone else started this exercise
> > and how are your results?
> >
> > Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
> > STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform
Software Solution Architect
> > Master Inventor
> >
> > Research
Triangle Park, NC
> > +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
> > Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> --
> All the best, Ashok
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must
leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to
this group and all
> your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php
>
>