OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

opencsa-ms message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: SCA TC Liaison issues

Open CSA SC,

The SCA BPEL TC has two issues, which were discussed during the recently 
concluded F2F, that require coordination across all SCA TCs. Since there 
is no official liaison mechanism set up, on behalf of SCA BPEL TC I'm 
bringing these issues to the attention of the Open CSA SC. I would like 
to request the SC to coordinate this across all the SCA TCs.

Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs?

Should the version of the SCA specs be 2.0 or 1.x? Or something else?
It is certainly possible to have the assembly specification be version 
2.0 and BPEL C&I specification version that depends on assembly 2.0 be 
1.5, for example. But such version numbers will be very confusing. Given 
that the TCs are affiliated with the Open CSA MS, a better approach 
would be to have the same version number for all the initial output 
specifications of the various SCA TC. If not, at the very least, have 
the number before the "." be the same. This will require coordination 
and agreement across all the TCs.

Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec

In aligning the spec with the OASIS template and accepting the OASIS TAB 
recommendations, the SCA BPEL TC decided to use the RFC 2119 keywords 
along with the following restriction:
a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for example, RFC 
2119 keywords MUST be capitalized)
b) use of lowercase 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. When the 
use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the implications wrt 
conformance, a suitable synonym will be found.
c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For 
example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC decided to not 
use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC decided to use 
'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL NOT' through 
out the spec.
Please note that the use of RFC 2119 keywords affect conformance. 
Consistency across the SCA spec with respect to conformance and the use 
of normative conformance lanaguage is highly desirable.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks and regards.

-Anish Karmarkar
SCA BPEL TC co-chair on behalf of SCA BPEL TC

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]