RE: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues

["Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

Neither do I; I just wanted to make it clear that the TAB document has no
official standing at this point in time.

Mary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:41 PM
> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; 'Anish Karmarkar'; opencsa-
> ms@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: 'Patil, Sanjay'; 'Mike Edwards'; 'Ashok Malhotra'; 'David Booz';
> 'Michael Rowley'; 'Blohm, Henning'; 'Bryan Aupperle'; 'Simon
> Holdsworth'
> Subject: RE: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
> 
> If a TC chooses not to use all RFC2119 keywords and to ban any lower
> case use of the terms in the spec I dont think this contradicts
> or violates anything. I simply see this as intructions to editors to do
> things a certain way.
> 
> Martin.
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
> >Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:58 PM
> >To: 'Anish Karmarkar'; opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Cc: 'Patil, Sanjay'; 'Mike Edwards'; 'Martin Chapman'; 'Ashok
> >Malhotra'; 'David Booz'; 'Michael Rowley'; 'Blohm, Henning';
> >'Bryan Aupperle'; 'Simon Holdsworth'
> >Subject: RE: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
> >
> >
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >  I just wanted to chime in, regarding Issue 2, that the while
> >the document produced by the TAB has been approved by the TAB
> >and forwarded to staff, it has not been published as
> >guidelines or recommendations. There is some confusion about
> >what keywords should or should not be used, and a
> >recently-prepared chart makes it even more confusing. I expect
> >that the final version, once posted might read a bit
> >differently (that is, including the use of terms the current
> >version says should be avoided).
> >
> >  I just didn't want the TCs making decisions on something
> >that has no official standing and has not been made publicly
> available.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Mary
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:30 PM
> >> To: opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Cc: Patil, Sanjay; Mike Edwards; Martin Chapman; Ashok
> >Malhotra; David
> >> Booz; Michael Rowley; Blohm, Henning; Bryan Aupperle; Simon
> >Holdsworth
> >> Subject: [opencsa-ms] 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
> >> --
> >
> >