[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] 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. Martin. From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] For the two documents in question to be
part of the conformance criteria, calling them "templates" seems
insufficient. Mike, 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. Cheers… - Jeff E. From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Unless
stated otherwise above:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]