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
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:22:06 +0100
Folks,
I don't forsee a need to rework our
own C&I specifications. I believe that the new documents already
describe what is there in the existing C&I documents.
Also, so far, the testcase adaptation
process has indeed followed what is described in that document...
The C&I documents vary, for sure,
but this is largely due to differing levels of function between the different
types. The content there is what is required by
the new "meta-specifications".
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:
| "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
|
To:
| "Martin Chapman" <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com>,
"Eric Johnson" <eric@tibco.com>, "Estefan, Jeff A
(3100)" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
|
Cc:
| "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 27/04/2010 19:23
|
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]
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
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]