Re: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6

[Thomas Studwell <studwell@us.ibm.com>]

Fukui-san,
I like this re-wording. It works for me. Thank you.

Thomas W. Studwell
Senior Technical Staff Member, Autonomic Computing Architecture
IBM Software Group
B140/Bldg 500
4205 S Miami Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
(919) 254-7574 Fax: (919) 254-7628 Mobile: (919) 619-1038
studwell@us.ibm.com

"There is a word for complaining about a problem without proposing a solution - it's called whining." Ric Telford 2006
Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

03/06/2006 07:53 PM

To	Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
cc	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6

Folks,

Though I was absent for earlier discussion of this thread, here is
my opinion. I think that I understand both considerations from
Debra and Julia.

> all implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully
> install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level.

And here, I see a conflict between an objective and a minimum requirement;
it is quite essential as an objective for standardization while it casts
the doubt there might be cases it fails, if we see the statement as a
absolute requirement for the SDD compliant implementations.

My proposal is to make the statement to read as requirements to
SDD itself, for example:

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 should have
ability to install the same SDD package, satisfying what the
conformance level specifies.

We can defer defining the requirements for its implementations
until we have a requirement set for SDD specification itself.

-Keisuke


Thomas Studwell wrote:
> When I wrote the ending clause I considered adding a number of
> qualifying statements that would limit the scope of what "successful"
> meant but, in the end, knew I was heading into a legalese rathole. So I
> left it general with my understanding that the scope of interoperability
> was within the context of the *description* of the installation, not the
> installation itself.
>
> Clearly we ultimately want perfect interoperability but I'd just as soon
> iterate toward that goal than try to achieve it on the first pass. So,
> as a long term requirement for SDD, I don't think 2.9.6 is a bad one.
> I'm willing to attach additional qualifiers if we see a need but I'd
> just as soon agree among ourselves that the scope for V1.0 is more
> limited than the broad interpretation.
>
> Thomas W. Studwell
> Senior Technical Staff Member, Autonomic Computing Architecture
> IBM Software Group
> B140/Bldg 500
> 4205 S Miami Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
> (919) 254-7574 Fax: (919) 254-7628 Mobile: (919) 619-1038
> studwell@us.ibm.com
>
> "There is a word for complaining about a problem without proposing a
> solution - it's called whining." Ric Telford 2006
> Inactive hide details for Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUSJulia
> McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>
>
>                         *Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS*
>
>                         03/06/2006 09:12 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
> "Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
>
> cc
>
> sdd@lists.oasis-open.org, Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>
> Subject
>
> RE: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6
>
>
>
>
> I agree that interoperability is very important, but I think it can only
> be achieved to the degree that we fully specify the contents of the SDD.
> Perhaps a better example is resource types. I don't think the SDD will
> define resource types and yet an implementation that cannot support a
> particular resource type could never successfully install an SDD that
> used that resource type. If two implementations support the resource
> types then they should be interoperable. I think we need to either fully
> specify everything that will be in the SDD or reword this requirement to
> only cover what is fully specified.
>
> Julia McCarthy
> Autonomic Computing Enablement
> julia@us.ibm.com
> Tie/Line 349/8156
> 877-261-0391
>
>
> Inactive hide details for "Danielson, Debra J"
> <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
>
>                                                 *"Danielson, Debra J"
>                                                 <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>*
>
>                                                 03/06/2006 09:00 AM
>
>
> To
>
> Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
>
> <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
>
> RE: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Debra
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
>
>
> Inactive hide details for Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUSThomas
> 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
>