RE: [soa-eerp] I045: BQoS - Conformance Issues 1

["eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn" <eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn>]

Fixed item #1 and changed last paragraph to the following: 

"This specification defines a number of extensions; compliant services are
NOT REQUIRED to implement those extensions defined in this specification. 
However, if a service implements an aspect of the specification, it MUST
comply with the requirements specified (e.g. related "MUST" statements). If
an implementation silently ignore unrecognized attributes where any
attribute is allowed, or silently ignore unrecognized elements where any
element is allowed, should be considered as interoperable implementation." 

There are no more SHOULD and MAY in the Conformance section, and no more
"OPTIONAL messages". Item #2, 3 and 4 of this issue should be addressed by
the above changes.


Szu Chang

Original Message:
-----------------
From: eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn eerp_sy@changfeng.org.cn
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:32:00 -0400
To: wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com, soa-eerp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-eerp] I045: BQoS - Conformance Issues 1


Issue # I045

For BQoS Spec only

Related issue I036, I046 and I047

Original Message:
-----------------
From: William Cox wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:36:44 -0400
To: soa-eerp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-eerp] NEW Issue: Conformance Issues 1


PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSION THREAD UNTIL THE 
ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.

The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.

Protocol: bqos rating sla

Artifact: spec

Type: design

Title: Conformance Issues 1

Description:

This issue applies to

BusinessQualityOfService-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf
BusinessRating-v1.0-spec-wd05.pdf
BusinessServiceLevelAgreement-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf

Examples are from BQOS. See lines 427-448

This addresses overall issues for conformance that I believe are in all 
three specifications. Line numbers from BQOS.

(1) Line 432 - which "table above"?

(2) Many of the conformance clauses reference SHOULD and MAY statements. 
It is not clear what MUST be done to conform.

(3) Another issue, Unrecognized Attributes and Extensibility, points out 
interoperability issues with the conformance and descriptions as 
provided. The choices should be conscious and clearly spelled out and 
justified.

(4) The conformance section references "OPTIONAL messages" (line 446 and 
elsewhere). What is meant by "message"? And who does or does not 
"support" it? This reads as if it were copied from a protocol spec, not 
a vocabulary spec.

Related issues:

Unrecognized Attributes and Extensibility

Proposed Resolution:

(a) Make terminology consistent; if the inconsistency is correct, state 
reason in normative text.

(b) Address interoperability concerns for multiple implementations, 
particularly ones that do not recognize the same sets of attributes. 
Explain in normative or non-normative text why the specified behavior is 
necessary or desirable for interoperation.

(c) Justify choices made in Appendix B or other non-normative text. The 
range of choices must be described, as well as the rationale for the 
particular choices.

(d) Correct wording referring to messages to "instances". Clarify who or 
what supports what behavior; see related issue on extensibility.


bill cox
--
*William Cox*
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 
<mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com>
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail