[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- discussions. I don't follow your conclusion that why discussing this in the 1.2 timeframe would end up wasting a lot of time. cheers, jeff > > 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]