Re: [opencsa-liaison] Use of "may", "must", etc.

[Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>]

below in <ba> ... </ba>

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com

Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>

12/04/2007 08:59 PM

To	Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [opencsa-liaison] Use of "may", "must", etc.

hi,

On Dec 04, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Bryan Aupperle wrote:

>
> 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.

How about "This means that code has to be written with ... "
 - at  
least in this instance its easy.

I'm puzzled by the first example. Why isn't this the use of may, in  
the RFC sense? Is the wording saying that the use of @Conversational  
is meaningless? If not then i don't see why RFC 2119 doesn't apply.  
If so, then why say anything about it. I am confused.
   cheers,
   jeff
<ba> The first example is related to the question
of conformance targets.  We have not yet settled on this, and that
may be the ultimate solution for this particular instance.  I was
trying to point out that the are cases where we want to expression something
being allowed that is not strictly a compliance point.

Your wording certainly works for the second case but
as I pointed out is wordier (using two words where one suffices), but if
that is the way we need to proceed, I understand.  </ba>

>
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky              
               
               
                 
               
              jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards    
            +1(650) 
506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff            
               
               
                 500
Oracle Parkway, M/ 
S 4OP9
Oracle                
                 
               
                 
               
                 
               
                 Redwood
Shores, CA 94065