I haven’t had a chance to look into the ‘new documents’ yet. Hopefully
the TC will approve to reopen the issue and we get a chance to collectively
look at these documents.
In any case, if there is not going to be a need to rework our
own C&I specs, that is indeed a great news which may also simplify this
whole discussion!
Best wishes,
Sanjay
From: Mike Edwards
[mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:22 AM
To: OASIS Assembly
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to
Sanjay's Proposal
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