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 11:22 AM, Patil, Sanjay wrote:

> I also agree that these should be metaspecs and our own C&I  
> specifications (and the associated test suites) should be their  
> first instances.
+1 (assuming we undertake this work)

> Does this mean we will have to reformat the existing C&I specs?

I would hope not, but i guess it would depend upon the final form of  
the new metaspec. BTW: i would hope that having to reformat the  
existing C&I specs would not be used as an argument for doing  
something quick and dirty in formulating the metaspec simply because  
it would delay 1.1 too much if we did.

> Does this mean we are signing up for a lot of new work?

yes. I don't see it could possibly be otherwise - not if we want to do  
a proper job.

> 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!

I do agree that if we don't vote yes/no for re-opening against 1.1 at  
the next meeting we will be wasting (even) more time on meta- 

I don't follow your conclusion that why discussing this in the 1.2  
timeframe would end up wasting a lot of time.


> 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.
> Martin.
> 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.
> -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]