Interesting conversation –
because each of these specs are being created by separate Technical Committees,
they are each going to be separate and distinct specs. They will each need to
have their own conformance statements, which I don’t think precludes
saying that you must also implement x, y and z from other-spec b and w from
other-spec c. But there can’t be a spec “SCA v1.1” unless one
TC creates it. I can envision one of the TCs creating SCA v1.1 and then saying
it incorporates by reference the other specifications …
Mary
From: Martin Chapman
[mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:50 PM
To: 'OASIS Liaison'
Subject: [opencsa-liaison] New Issue: Cross SCA TC conformance
There are a number of issues related to
conformance that I think the Liaison SC should discuss since they cross TC
boundaries.
Each Spec is required to have its own
conformance section, and normally these are stand alone entities.
Typically we would see statements
like “To conform to this specification a vendor MUST implement all the
features outlined in sections x thru z” .
However for some of our specs this will not
make sense. Take Bindings for example. Since we are not defining plug and play
apis to allow a binding vendor to be different from an SCA runtime
vendor, how would we write the conformance in each binding spec?
Also, some have talked about the notion
of conforming to SCA v1.1, but that would probably encompass Assembly,
Policy, bindings and the c+i.
For example “To conform to sca v1.1.
a vendor MUST support assembly, policy, bindings.ws (for example) implemented
in one of the following languages according to its c+I: java, bpel, c++”.
Where are we going to make such a declaration? Assembly?
Martin.
Martin Chapman | Standards Professional
Mobile: +353 87 687 6654
ORACLE Ireland
"Please
consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail"