[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Discussing Clarity, Ambiguity and Conformance Requirements
Yes, thanks Dennis. We will keep those in mind and bring it up to Jamie. I will send a letter today to arrange that meeting with Jamie. I will post the meeting schedule and please if you both have time, do join us. Best rgds, Allison 2009/1/20 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>: > Very valuable comments, Dennis. Many thanks indeed. > > Best regards > > Steve > > 2009/1/20 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: >> I think that is a question for Jamie, and it may be a matter of time >> sequence. >> >> I have some speculations: >> >> 1. It is very important for subsequent maintenance at OASIS to have an OASIS >> UOML Specification that has identical content in the body of the >> specification to whatever is finally approved as an ISO/IEC International >> Standard (IS) via JTC1. >> >> 2. That way errata produced for the OASIS Standard will also apply to the >> IS. >> >> 3. Also, defect reports against the IS will apply to the OASIS Standard too. >> >> 4. That is important for a smooth maintenance cycle between JTC1 and OASIS. >> >> Concerning the conformance section, you might need to do two things: >> >> 5. Prepare a version of UOML that uses ISO/IEC JTC1 conformance language >> (shall, shall not, may, need not, can, can not) everywhere, if that option >> wasn't taken. >> >> 6. Add a conformance section to whatever level you require. >> >> But, >> >> 7. Find out from Jamie whether it is better to process an edition 2 of the >> current UOML at least through committee specification (or just committee >> draft) before going to JTC1 or not. I don't know if JTC1 would accept it >> unless it is taken all the way to OASIS Standard though. Jamie will have a >> good sense of whether that is worthwhile. >> >> 8. If you could just take the 2nd edition to committee draft and wait for >> comments back from JTC1, you could line up a new committee draft with >> adjustments for comments from JTC1, take that to committee specification, >> send it to JTC1 as the basis for their IS document, and process it as an >> OASIS standard to have a matching document at OASIS. >> >> I am not at all confident about (7-8), and Jamie will have far better >> suggestions. I only know how difficult keeping maintenance lined up for ODF >> because we didn't do this and IS 26300:2006 is enough different from the >> OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard that maintenance is tricky. >> >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf >> Of Stephen Green >> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 17:24 >> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org >> Cc: UOML-X Comment; allison shi; Alex Wang >> Subject: Re: Discussing Clarity, Ambiguity and Conformance Requirements >> >> Thanks Dennis >> >> This is the kind of QA detail I too think we need to consider. >> >> Would submission to JTC1 provide the opportunity to improve >> such aspects of the specification? Or would we need a further >> document which we progress through the OASIS process, such >> as some kind of conformance profile? >> >> Best regards >> >> Steve >> >> 2009/1/20 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: >>> In observing the call today, I the conversation about making sure there is >> no ambiguity in the specifications (apart from what must be determined by >> implementations), I thought of the Conformance Guidelines. This is a good >> test, although it doesn't prevent ambiguity. >>> >>> I find this document challenging to follow, but very promising in the >> result it could provide: >>> >>> The 4 September 2007 Guidelines to Writing Conformance Clauses >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html >>> >>> There are a number of specific instructions about identifying conformance >> targets and there is an interesting checklist in section 6: >>> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html#_ >> Toc170119665 >>> >>> The checklist might be useful to think about. >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> Dennis E. Hamilton >>> ------------------ >>> NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability >>> mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 >>> http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Stephen D. Green >> >> Document Engineering Services Ltd >> >> >> >> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice >> >> > > > > -- > Stephen D. Green > > Document Engineering Services Ltd > > > > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]