I agree with Tom’s rewrite, and I
think it should be reasonably strong. I think that if we don’t have
as an objective reuse of descriptors regardless of the implementation initially
targeted, then I’m not sure what value we are bringing with the
standard.
Tom’s phrasing doesn’t say
that the results of a SDD install will be identical if installed on multiple
implementations, only that it is successful. I believe that this gives us
the leeway within the SDD to support metadata that can be exploited by implementations
and other standards. So in the example of your naming standards –
why would support for multiple naming/ versioning standards be any different
than supporting platform differences, or supporting multiple application
servers?
From: Julia McCarthy
[mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:14
AM
To: Thomas Studwell
Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sdd] Groups - Action
Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6
Unfortunately, this wording does not address my
concern. Specifically, this final phrase still contains too broad a claim.
all
implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully install the
same SDD package requiring that conformance level.
I believe that there will be other factors in a successful install that are
outside the control of the SDD specification. For example, we've been
discussing naming and versioning as being outside the scope of the SDD. If
competing standards for naming and versioning emerge it is quite possible that
implementations may function with one or the other standard but not both. There
really is something very important to say with this requirement, but I think it
needs to stop short of claiming that using SDD provides universal
interoperability. Unless there are people in the group that believe SDD really
will provide universal interoperability. Anyone?
Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391
Thomas
Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Thomas
Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
03/03/2006 05:57 PM
|
To
|
sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[sdd] Groups -
Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6
|
|
OASIS Solution Deployment Descriptor (SDD) TC
member,
Mr Thomas Studwell has modified this action item.
Number: #0051
Description: 2.9.6
Owner: Mr Thomas Studwell
Status: Open
Due: 03 Mar 2006
Comments:
Ms. Julia McCarthy 2006-03-02 00:07 GMT
2.9.6 Julia disagrees because Debra
suggests this contradicts 2.11.1. Tom will look at use case and make
recommendation to either reword or delete. ACTION ITEM #0051
Ms. Julia McCarthy 2006-03-02 00:15 GMT
Here is the expanded text from the minutes:
2.9.6 Julia disagrees because she believes
there will be factors outside the scope of the SDD that determine
interoperability. Debra suggests this contradicts 2.11.1. Tom will look at the
associated use case and make recommendation to either reword or delete. ACTION
ITEM #0051
Mr Thomas Studwell 2006-03-03 22:57 GMT
Replaced section 2.9.6 with the following text:
2.9.6 The SDD specification, while defining
various conformance levels (see requirement 2.11.1), must be sufficiently
unambiguous so that all implementations meeting a specific conformance level
successfully install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level.
View Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sdd/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1292
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work
for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces.
You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of
your web browser.
- OASIS Open Administration