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

On Apr 27, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:

> 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.
This is along the lines of an approach i suggested several months ago  
as a possible way forward, that the TC decided was "too hard/ 
complicated" to address in the remaining 1.1 timeframe. You claim  
conformance of your implementation type, by claiming that it  
implements and conforms to what i would describe as the meta spec.
   (BTW: one of the criteria i believe should be a test suite.)

> 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 agree that this should be discussed for 1.2, but I think it is way  
too late in the game for the 1.1 train -- especially because IMO this  
needs to be a rigorous spec, carefully vetted, reviewed, and debugged.  
It will take several months to do so, irrespective of the extra time  
for public reviews, etc.

One other issue I just thought of is that if the TC adopts this  
approach, I wonder if an unintended consequence might be that there  
are no more C&I specs adopted by OASIS. Why would I as a vendor want  
to subject my work to review and standardization by another group when  
i don't have to. In fact, what would prevent, say Oracle, from  
shipping its own java or bpel implementation type and claiming  
conformance? something to think about... since the assumption has been  
that this would be used only for "new" languages.

> 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.

The OASIS Process Committee has been dealing with this for several  
years. It finally completed a proposed changed to the TC Process which  
would create a new class of documents, tentatively named Committee  
Notes. A draft of the proposal was posted to the chairs list, i  
believe, a while ago. Some board members strongly objected to adopting  
it because they are opposed to CNs being subject to the (protections  
of) the OASIS IPR Policy. The current status is that board decided to  
defer voting pending further deliberations.

So i'm afraid there is not much mary or other oasis staff members can  
do with it.


> -Eric.
> On 04/27/2010 09:34 AM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:
>> 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]
>> 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
>> Folks,
>> 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:
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/37466/sca-assembly-1.1-impl-type-documentation-wd02.odt
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/37467/sca-assembly-1.1-testsuite-adaptation-wd02.odt
>> 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

Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065

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