RE: [sdo] ISSUE 164: SDO Compliant Documentation

["Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>]

Hi Bryan,

 

Thanks for reviewing the document.  I'm not sure how MAY's can be normative...after all, they are explicitly saying we cannot test for the behavior.  But in any case, all the text having to do with "MAY throw an exception" is really just a waste of space.  I mean, what does it tell the user when we say that an implementation MAY throw an exception, but, on the otherhand, it may accept the input?

 

Another point is that I removed MUSTs from lines like "the getRootObject method MUST return the root object."  I think we need some kind of text that says the API has to be fully implemented, and the normative statements in the docu go beyond the behavior described in the javadoc..." otherwise the spec just becomes too unreadable.

 

At least, that was my reasoning.  I guess this will all be discussed on Tuesday's meeting.  Have fun!  I'll be in Barcelona :-)

 

Ron

---

From: Bryan Aupperle [mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Freitag, 14. August 2009 19:44
To: Barack, Ron
Cc: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sdo] ISSUE 164: SDO Compliant Documentation

Lines with  MAYs that need 
review: 

There is a set dealing with 
throwing exceptions (380, 413, 549, 553, 554, 1013, 1628 and 1648).  While 
these are OK, there may be a better way to discuss error handling once and not 
have all of these individual MAYs. 

There is a set dealing with the language specs (244, 245, 263 and 264). 
 Unless we make language specifications conformance targets (not the SCA 
pattern), we need reword these. 

711-713 and 1488-1489 should be reworded. 

Ones that are not really normative statements: 130, 335, 
421 (lower case), 491, 672, 844, 1011, 1161 (lower case), 1567 (lower case), 
2114&2115, 2201 (lower case). 

2343 has a wording problem 

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software 
Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 
+1 919-254-7508 
(T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com

From:	"Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>
To:	<sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	08/14/2009 09:45 AM
Subject:	[sdo] ISSUE 164:  SDO Compliant Documentation

---

Hi Everyone,

As discussed, I've created a JIRA issue to discuss this:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/SDO-164

As promised, I've uploaded a first pass at the core spec here:  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sdo/download.php/33803/sdo-core-090814.doc

The version has an appendix where the compliance points are listed, with links to the relevant sections of the spec…I believe that this is what Brian was referring to when he said we should copy what was done in the SCA assembly TC.

I've used the keyword MUST to indicate a compliance point for the implementation.  I tried to keep these limited to stuff for which I could imagine writing a test.  For constraints on application, I used "requires".  I noticed that the SCA spec also has compliance points on things like the SCDL files, so it seemed OK to use 2119 language here.  The appendix contains only MUSTS.

Of course I had to make a bunch of editorial changes, and as I was going thru I reworked some paragraphs that I thought were unclear.  I tried not to alter the meaning of anything, only to clarify, but this requires everyone review the changes.  The only big change was that I removed section 4.2.7, on change summary serialization, to chapter 11 (ChangeSummary XML Format).  

Best Regards,
Ron