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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

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

Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to Sanjay's Proposal


I also agree that these should be metaspecs and our own C&I specifications (and the associated test suites) should be their first instances. Does this mean we will have to reformat the existing C&I specs? Does this mean we are signing up for a lot of new work? I guess these are some good questions. The good news is that we have some drafts for the metaspecs to look at and do some practical evaluation of the work involved, its value, etc. I don’t think simply postponing the resolution  to 1.2 on the grounds of too-much-work-not-enough-time is a good idea.  IMHO, we should reopen the issue (against 1.1) and get some real data in front of the TC before deciding the final fate of this issue. Otherwise we may end up wasting a lot of time on several meta-discussions!


From: Martin Chapman [mailto:MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Eric Johnson; Estefan, Jeff A (3100)
Cc: OASIS Assembly
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to Sanjay's Proposal


Not the Magna Carta? Now that sounds like Monty Python Spec text.


As some may know the Board has been trying to propose a different document track to cover non specs.

Unfortunately the ugly IPR issue seems to be getting in the way – I’ve personally been on this case for almost 4 years now!


FWIW I tend to agree with Eric, that these documents should be meta-specs, and as such will not really fall under this new category.




From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com]
Sent: 27 April 2010 18:06
To: Estefan, Jeff A (3100)
Cc: OASIS Assembly
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to Sanjay's Proposal


For the two documents in question to be part of the conformance criteria, calling them "templates" seems insufficient.

I expect, rather, that we would treat these documents as "specs about specs".  That is, they should define what an implementation specification MUST include, what it SHOULD include, and what it MUST NOT include (although I'm puzzling over what appropriately fits into the last category - "MUST NOT include the text of the Magna Carta."? ).  Only when a spec satisfies those criteria can someone then turn around and claim that their implementation type is conforming.

Of course, as we discussed on the call today, it is really up to the TC to decide how we approach this problem, but that's my take.  That's why I prefer opening new issues against 1.2.

I still think it is useful to talk to Mary or other OASIS staff to see if this question has arisen before, and how it has been dealt with.


On 04/27/2010 09:34 AM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:



As mentioned on today’s call, we’ll need to ask the assistance of Mary and perhaps other members of the OASIS staff about this topic, but I do not see how these templates would need to be elevated to formal OASIS Specification status because unlike the SCA Assembly Model specification, which truly is an OASIS spec as it contains “specification” language, these proposed documents contain requirements language (in the form of templates) that are intended to assist the user community with verifying an SCA Runtime’s conformance with a SCA Assembly Model specification.


Looking over the various OASIS document templates (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/), I do not see on in place for such a technical work product.


Raising these documents to full Specification level will most certainly impede our progress on ratifying the SCA Assembly Model v1.1 spec and I hope that is not the case, but we certainly need to find out sooner rather than later.


Would you like me to reach out to Mary and the OASIS staff about this or would you and/or Martin as TC co-chairs prefer to initiative the question?  Just let me know.




 - Jeff E.


From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:25 PM
To: OASIS Assembly
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to Sanjay's Proposal



Since some comments on this thread indicated that some people did not see that there were a pair of
documents attached to the original email that started the thread, I have assumed that there have been
some transmission problems and I have posted copies of the documents into the OASIS web site.

They can be accessed here:


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com


Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

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