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

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Eric,

Why would we want to exclude such a
fine document as the Magna Carta from an implementation type specification??
Some medieval Latin is guaranteed to
spice up such a dry document as an implementation type description.

Being more serious, the two documents
linked from my email do much as you indicate in your email
- they make statements about what MUST
be included, what SHOULD be included - and for the material so described,
they state what MUST and what MUST NOT
be true about it.
- they don't exclude other material
being added (I doubt that such exclusion is necessary) and the main thing
is to ensure
the minimum necessary documentation
and related materials.  If we have budding artists who wish to add
novel-length
extra material, I doubt that it is useful
to try to exclude such material - in practice, it will be enough of a burden
to supply
what is required.

I hope that the 2 versions of the documents
linked below already cover most if not all of what needs to be covered.
I'd be interested in seeing folks comments
on them.


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

From:	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:	"Estefan, Jeff A (3100)" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:	OASIS Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	27/04/2010 18:06
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

---

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