2008/10/22 Durand, Jacques R.
<JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
...
2- Previous comments made on the examples
in this section (and agreed prior to Sept 30 mini-F2F), were not fully
implemented in this new version.
Namely, the "Interpretation"
of TA
id:
widget-TA108-1 is not
correct:
Normative
Source:
Conformance clause to Mini-Widget Small Box Specification
1.2
<SG> so the spec says that a small widget must also be a widget (e.g.
by normatively referencing 'WidgetSpec 1.0')
<JD> thats what the guideline needs to make clear ! (how this conf
clause relates to the WidgetSpec
1.0)
Prerequisite: [the widget] is
conformant to Mini-Widget Small Box Specification
1.2
<SG> it is almost too obvious that it is a prerequisite that we are
considering a small widget
(determined by conformance to the small widget spec), but might as well
assert that it is
a prerequisite
Predicate: [the
widget] is conformant to WidgetSpec 1.0
<SG> the main assertion is that such a small widget is also a widget
in that it conforms to
the WidgetSpec 1.0
the way this TA reads, the normative Source must be aligned with
the Predicate: it should be "Conformance clause to
WidgetSpec 1.0" (exactly like in widget-TA109-1)
<SG> Surely this is just another way of saying the same thing:
"conformant to WidgetSpec 1.0" == "conforms to the conformance clause of
WidgetSpec 1.0"
<JD> but the normative source in current draft is not about WidgetSpec 1.0, it is about
Mini-Widget Small Box Specification 1.2.
That does not jibe with the Predicate.
The presence of the prerequisite means that the TA only
applies to widgets already known as confirming to Mini-Widget Small Box spec:
<SG> I agree
Its interpretation should then be: "A mini-widget (conforming
to Mini-Widget Small Box ...) MUST conform to WidgetSpec 1.0 as
described in the COnformance Clause of this
spec."
<SG> Isn't this just two ways to say the same thing
"
A widget that
conforms to the Mini-Widget Small Box Specification 1.2. must be conformant to
the WidgetSpec 1.0
specification."==
"A mini-widget (conforming to Mini-Widget Small Box ...) MUST
conform to WidgetSpec 1.0 as described in the
COnformance Clause of this spec."
< JD> I
guess you are right. However I think these conformance statements should be
carefully worded, are intrinsically ambiguous: could be
understood:
(a) "IN ORDER to be considered as a conforming
mini-widget, it MUST before this conform to the general WidgetSpec" (would be
the case of a CClause for mini-widget that refers to widget, as suggested in
Normative Source)
(b) "IN ORDER to be considered for widget
conformance it MUST before this conform to the mini-widget spec" (this is
what is suggested by Prereq + Predicate)
A way to clarify this, is again to be more specific as
how the Conf Clause refers to the other spec. Thats the first thing to do to
clarigy these examples.
The current interpretation seems to imply that all mini-widgets
MUST conform to WidgetSpec 1.0 but thats not
what the TA says.
<SG> I thought that is exactly what the TA says - except that there
is a very slight difference
- The current
interpretation seems to imply that all mini-widgets ** in order to conform
to
the Mini-Widget Small Box Specification 1.2
** MUST conform to WidgetSpec
1.0 but thats not what the TA says.
...