OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-brsp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Revised: Minutes Nov 21, 2013

Revised minutes for Nov 21, 2013 (more complete, from Gershon chat notes)





21 November 2013, 11:00am to noon PDT



Scribe: Jacques Durand

0. Call to Order and roll call

Jacques Durand calls the meeting to order and welcomes everyone.


* Roll call:


Ram Jeyaraman

Jacques Durand

Alessio Soldano

Tom Rutt

Micah Hainline

Gershon Janssen




Doug Davis


This meeting is quorate.


Agenda adopted.


1. Administrative: min Oct 31. (to be posted)

2. Test Tools follow-up status (short)

3. Public Review feedback:

- assessment: do we have major, "material" comments?

- rough classification:

(a) need no action at all,

(b) purely editorial, worth doing, (clarifications, typos...)

(c) apparently substantial (may be "material" , affect conformance)

(d) classification pending (unsure which category)



Action Items:


AI-1: Jacques to do a more precise inventory of test tools

AI-2: Ram: will do inventory of Microsoft test tools, and also check current MSFT licensing terms.

AI-3: Jacques: to check WS-I licensing with Jamie, does it have any impact,

AI-4: Everyone who developed test tools in the past, to check if their company is OK with an OSS style licensing.





1. Administrative: min Oct 31. (postponed)


2. Test Tools follow-up status (short)

No progress.


3. Public Review feedback:

- large number of comments (~300 total over the 4 profiles)

- assessment: do we have major, "material" comments?

- rough classification:

(a) need no action at all,

(b) purely editorial, worth doing, (clarifications, typos...)

(c) apparently substantial (may be "material" , affect conformance)

(d) classification pending (unsure which category)


Reminder of categories:

- Bucket C1: need not be addressed: the TC can ignore it, i.e. no change in the spec

(although we’ll explain why in our comment disposition)

- Bucket C2: need a "non-material" spec change (see definition below) that the TC should do,

for the sake of spec quality and also because editorial requirements may need this for OS status.

- Bucket C3: need a "material" spec change: the fix may affect implementations and the

normative meaning of the specification.

- Bucket C4: don’t know exactly where to classify this comment (1,2,3?)

“Non-Material Change" is any change to the content of a Work Product

(i.e. specification) that does not add or remove any feature of the Work Product and that:

(a) constitutes only error corrections, editorial changes, or formatting changes;…”.

A Non-material comment does not require another public review, when fixed.


Tom: lots of C2 , no C3 comments.

See: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-brsp/201311/msg00013.html


Tom: review of TAB-302, 343, 392. "Appendix A. Extensibility ..." suggests

this is a non-normative appendix. Move to C1 class. Gershon +1.


Jacques: even if we have only C1 and C2 comments, we may want to consider a new PR (15 days)

just because of the large numbers, and as courtesy to reviewer(s) having spent lots of time on it.


Jacques: proposes to work from "major" (and "blocker" and "critical")comments down to "minor" comments.

Reason: fixing some major comments will solve the minor ones.


Ram: What are "blocker" comments? some could be material changes.


Micah: need to better distinguish Normative vs. non-normative content.


Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): TAB-303, 344 about Appendix C. Testing

consists of instructions for how to apply the test assertions, which are said in 1.3 Test Assertions.

Need to clarify test assertions Not a normative document.

Also At a minimum, mark the appendix as non-normative. Suggest to mark both Appendix A and C as Informative


TomR request all to review C2 items and focus on items classified as Major and Blocker,

leaving the Minor ones alone for now.


Jacques: review of comments for BP1.2: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-brsp/201311/msg00015.html


Gershon Janssen: Jacques explains his proposal for semantic categories for comments and how we might handle those.

Tom will handle the reference & citations related comments. (TAB-165, TAB-222, TAB-167, TAB-155, TAB-301)

investigate dead links


Jacques will work on teh conformance-related, conformance Claim mechanism .


All: ivited to suggestion to look at the merged ZIP file on the list with all comments / triage

URL for ZIP: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=51482&wg_abbrev=ws-brsp


Summary of Jacques review:

Summary of my own review of BP1.2 (sorry should have posted it earlier this week):

-     The reviewer has categorized comments as minor / major / critical / blocker. We need to answer properly the “major / critical / blocker”

-     A short list of the major comment types:

1.    General packaging : should all profiles be a single Work product (single spec)? (TAB-400)

2.    Confusion about Test Assertions status: normative/not? (TAB-265)

3.    Confusion about Appendix status: normative/not? (TAB-302)

4.    Confusion about some examples status: normative/not? (TAB-290)

5.    Conformance Claim mechanism itself: normative or not? (TAB-278)

6.    References and citations need major clean-up, some need be updated? (TAB-165, TAB-222, TAB-167, TAB-155, TAB-301)

7.    HTML validation issues (TAB-120)

8.    Normative scope of content: only the Rxxx or more? (TAB-267)


Expectation to dispose all comments by Feb/2014


4.  Adjourn






[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]