-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 10:24 AM
To: Martin Chapman
Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to
WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
But this
statement is a simple process statement that acknowledges that one of the
multiple formats of the spec itself (that we are required to generate) should
be nominated as the authoratative version. In that case we have multiple copies
of the same content in different formats. The WSDL and schema do not have
multiple formats; they accompany the spec and should not be considered as more
or less important that the spec PDF/Word/HTML. So I don't see any relevance of
this statement to issue 118.
Regards,
Ian Robinson
|
"Martin
Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
20/03/2008
18:44
|
|
To
|
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,
"'Ram Jeyaraman'" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>,
"'Peter Furniss'"
<peter.furniss@irisfinancialsolutions.com>, Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
|
|
cc
|
<ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
Subject
|
RE:
[ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-AT
and WS-BA specifications
|
|
I just wanted to add that the multiple
copies and the potential to have inconsistencies between them has just been
recognised in the
revised TC process.
In http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#specQuality its says
All TC-approved versions of documents (i.e. Committee Drafts, Public
Review Drafts, and Committee Specifications)
must be delivered to the TC's document repository in the (1)
editable source, (2) HTML or XHTML, and (3) PDF formats;
and the TC must explicitly designate one of those delivered formats
as the authoritative document.
Therefore I see it as good hygenine to extend this to the cover the
schemas/wsdl files.
Martin.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
>Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:40 PM
>To: 'Martin Chapman'; 'Ram Jeyaraman'; 'Peter Furniss'; 'Ian Robinson'
>Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section
>to WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>
>
>...pardon a small interruption.
>
>I'd like to agree with both sides - there *shouldn't* be any
>inconsistencies between the various copies. Which means that
>each TC should take very careful measures to ensure that
>element identifiers are spelled consistently throughout the
>spec (including case), that descriptions are consistent
>throughout the spec and correspond to the schema, etc. But the
>reality is that stuff happens. And if one person states that
>they've implemented the specification and used the element
>identifiers in the specification document, and another person
>states that they've implemented the specification and used the
>schema file, they will not interoperate. One of them is
>incorrect. By declaring one to take precedence over the other,
>you are in fact certifying that you have done due diligence to
>ensure that there are no inaccuracies in a particular copy,
>and that everyone has used that copy for their
>testing/implementation. It should be noted that it's
>impossible to test a schema that is included in a document
>without first extracting it into a standalone file.
>
>Multiple copies of anything are bad. They introduce errors
>that oftentimes go unnoticed. By telling implementers that
>they should use a particular copy you are letting them know
>that that was the particular copy that was tested against and
>that statements of use were issued against.
>
>But you're absolutely right that it could be the version that
>is declared as taking precedence that has the error. Depending
>on the scenario, an errata may not suffice. Errata is defined
>in the TC Process as: "Errata" means a set of changes or
>proposed changes to a specification that are not Substantive Changes
>
>Following the thread, Substantive Change is defined as:
>"Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that
would
>require a compliant application or implementation to be
>modified or rewritten in order to remain compliant.
>
>Even the smallest of changes can result in a substantive change.
>
>... now returning to your regularly scheduled programming.
>
>Mary
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:55 AM
>> To: 'Ram Jeyaraman'; 'Peter Furniss'; 'Ian Robinson'
>> Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to
WS-
>> Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>>
>> I have to strongly dissagree about precedence/authoritative as it
>> really may affect interop, regardless of whether it's a genuine
>> mistake or not. Reporting an inconsistency does not solve
>any interop
>> issue. By saying one copy (the external Files) is authoritative
>> removes any ambuguity as to what vendors and users must conform
to!
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
>> >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:15 PM
>> >To: Peter Furniss; Ian Robinson
>> >Cc: Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >Subject: RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section
to
>> >WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >
>> >
>> >On conformance:
>> >
>> >I have suggested below some modifications to the
>conformance text to
>> >indicate that a non-conformant implementation must not use
element
>> >and attributes of the TX namespace within a SOAP Envelope:
>> >
>> >"Conformance
>> > An implementation is not conformant with this specification
if it
>> >fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level
>> >requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node MUST NOT use elements
and
>> >attributes of the declared XML Namespace (listed on the title
page)
>> >for this specification within SOAP Envelopes unless it is
>conformant
>> >with this specification."
>> >
>> >I hope this addresses Peter's point about use of TX
>namespace within
>> >a SOAP Envelope.
>> >
>> >On precedence:
>> >
>> >Since precedence rules really do not help address
>inconsistencies, I
>> >suggest that we do not include any statement about precedence
rules.
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@ebusinessware.com]
>> >On Behalf Of Peter Furniss
>> >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:09 AM
>> >To: Ian Robinson
>> >Cc: Ram Jeyaraman; Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >Subject: Re: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section
to
>> >WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >
>> >On "precedence" statement:
>> >
>> >Some spe
>> >cifications that have taken the approach Ram proposes have
>included a
>> >paragraph on the lines:
>> >
>> >"If inconsistency are found between any of the normative
>text within
>> >this specification, the normative outlines, the XML Schema
>> >*_[XML-Schema1]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_*
>> ><#XMLSchema2>* *and the WSDL *_[WSDL]_* <#WSDL>*
*descriptions, the
>> >reader is requested to report this defect to the OASIS WS-Tx
TC (if
>> >it is still active) or to OASIS. No general precedence rule is
>> >defined as the inconsistency, if genuine, is a mistake."
>> >
>> >Such a paragraph is really only needed if other
>specifications have A
>> >> B > C precedence statements, just to show the TC
thought
>about and
>> >gave this answer. Since other OASIS specifications will be
adding
>> >precedence statements, we probably need to add this null one
too.
>> >
>> >On the conformance statement itself:
>> >
>> >The sentence "A SOAP Node MUST NOT use the declared XML
Namespace
>> >(listed on the title page) for this specification within SOAP
>> >Envelopes unless it is conformant with this
specification"
>would seem
>> >to be too broad ((Apologies if this wording has been beaten up
on
>> >already) . That would seem to disallow, for example, an error
>> >reporting service to quote erroneous soap headers - or even
>to send a
>> >fault containing "namespace <ws-tx ns> is not
recognised".
>Obviously
>> >that's not our intention, but a lot depends on "use"
if we are to
>> >claim we aren't saying it. Does it work to have something like
"A
>> >SOAP Node whose implementation is not conformant with this
>> >specification MUST NOT use the declared XML Namespace (listed
>> >on the title page) for this specification to identify SOAP
>> >Headers." I don't think that's quite right either
(probably
>> >over-restrictive).
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter
>> >
>> >
>> >Ian Robinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Ram's rationale that it is better to fix any
>> >> inconsistencies that may be found rather than defining an
>order of
>> >> authority. I suggest the conformance text be simply as
follows:
>> >>
>> >> "Conformance
>> >> An implementation is not conformant with this
specification if it
>> >> fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED
level
>> >> requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node MUST NOT use the
>> >declared XML
>> >> Namespace (listed on the title page) for this
>specification within
>> >> SOAP Envelopes unless it is conformant with this
specification.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ian Robinson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>*
>> >>
>> >> 11/03/2008 23:01
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To
>> >> Martin Chapman
<martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Ian
>> >> Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc
>> >>
"ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> >> Subject
>> >> RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add
Conformance section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ideally, there should not be any inconsistencies between
the
>> >> specification and its associated artifacts.
>> >>
>> >> In case of an inconsistency between the specification and
one of
>> >> its artifacts, there are a few possibilities: 1. The
>specification
>> >> is incorrect 2. The artifact is incorrect 3. Both are
incorrect
>> >>
>> >> The obvious solution to this problem is to resolve the
>> >> inconsistency by publishing an errata in order to bring
the
>> >> specification
>> >and/or the
>> >> artifact back to a consistent state.
>> >>
>> >> Setting a precedence rule, such as the assigning the
artifact or
>> >> the specification an overriding position, carries the
risk of
>> >perpetuating
>> >> an error. For example, if we say the artifact has a
>precedence over
>> >> the specification, and the artifact turns out to be
>erroneous, then
>> >> unfortunately the precedence rule would make the
>erroneous artifact
>> >> correct by default.
>> >>
>> >> I observe that any overriding precedence hierarchy does
not
>> >> actually correct the underlying cause of the problem and
>it carries
>> >the danger
>> >> of making an erroneous publication correct. Hence, I do
not see a
>> >> value in prescribing a precedence rule. Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> *From:* Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
*
>> >> Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:08 AM*
>> >> To:* 'Ian Robinson'*
>> >> Cc:* Ram Jeyaraman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org*
>> >> Subject:* RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance
section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >> Yes we do need it as "I am not aware" doesn't
mean to say
>> >there aren't
>> >> any! Typically these are editorial errors/typos, which do
happen.
>> >> So lets just cover our backs in case. -----Original
Message-----*
>> >> From:* Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com] *
>> >> Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:37 PM*
>> >> To:* Martin Chapman*
>> >> Cc:* 'Ram Jeyaraman'; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org*
>> >> Subject:* RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance
section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >> I knew we'd talked about this in TX in the past but it
took
>> >me a while
>> >> to dig out where. It was in the context of issue 26 a
long time
>> >> ago. [1] At that time we were deciding whether to have
integrated
>> >> or standalone WSDL and schema but precedence was
discussed. It
>> >> seems we never stated our decision in the specs but our
>decision at
>> >> that time was the following precedence (from highest to
>lowest): 1.
>> >> Normative text within the specification. 2. WSDL &
schema 3.
>> >> Outlines/snippets within the specification
>> >>
>> >> Having said the above, I'm not aware of our specification
>materials
>> >> having any ambiguity or contradiction that requires this
>> >statement at
>> >> all. Do we actually need it?
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>>
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/17464/WS-TX_Minutes
>> >_
>> >> 2006_03_14-15.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ian Robinson
>> >>
>> >> *"Martin Chapman"
<martin.chapman@oracle.com>*
>> >>
>> >> 10/03/2008 20:24
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To
>> >> "'Ram Jeyaraman'"
<Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>, Ian
>> >> Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc
>> >> <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>,
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
>> >> Subject
>> >> RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add
Conformance section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ram,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry just catching up on travel backlog.
>> >>
>> >> Mary and myself have just been talking about the
precedence
>> >issue for
>> >> another TC. Considering the external files are the ones
that
>> >should be
>> >> verified for correctness, and that they will most
probably
>> >be the ones
>> >> downloaded and used in projects, I recommend we make the
external
>> >> files the authoritative ones (highest precedence).
>> >>
>> >> How about:
>> >> "The XML Schema *_[XML-Schema1]_*
<outbind://24/#XMLSchema1>
>> >> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <outbind://24/#XMLSchema2>* *and
WSDL *_[WSDL]_*
>> >> <outbind://24/#WSDL>* *descriptions are
authoritative and take
>> >> precedence over Normative text within this specification,
>which in
>> >> turn take precedence over normative outlines ."
>> >>
>> >> Martin.
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----*
>> >> From:* Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
*
>> >> Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2008 8:18 PM*
>> >> To:* Ian Robinson*
>> >> Cc:* Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org*
>> >> Subject:* RE: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance
section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Ian,
>> >>
>> >> I have suggested text below that includes your change.
>> >>
>> >> In the text, I have replaced "take precedence over
the XML Schema
>> >> *_[XML-Schema1]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_*
<#XMLSchema2>*
>> >> *descriptions" with "take precedence over the
XML Schema
>> >> *_[XML-Schema1]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_*
>> ><#XMLSchema2>* *and
>> >> WSDL *_[WSDL]_* <#WSDL>* *descriptions".
>> >>
>> >> The insertion point for the conformance section seems
fine.
>> >> "Conformance An implementation is not conformant
with this
>> >> specification if it fails to satisfy one or more of the
MUST or
>> >> REQUIRED level requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node
MUST NOT
>> >> use the declared XML Namespace for this specification
(listed in
>> >> section
>> >> 1.x) within SOAP Envelopes unless it is conformant with
this
>> >> specification. Normative text within this specification
takes
>> >> precedence over normative outlines, which in turn take
>> >precedence over
>> >> the XML Schema
>> >> *_[XML-Schema1]_* <#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_*
>> ><#XMLSchema2>* *and
>> >> WSDL *_[WSDL]_* <#WSDL>* *descriptions."
>> >>
>> >> *
>> >> From:* Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com] *
>> >> Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2008 2:50 AM*
>> >> To:* Ram Jeyaraman*
>> >> Cc:* Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org*
>> >> Subject:* Re: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance
section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My comments on the proposed new section:
>> >>
>> >> * "the XML namespace identifier for
this
>specification (listed in
>> >> section 1.4)" might be better
as "the declared XML
>> >Namespace for
>> >> this specification" since this
is part of the front page
>> >> material for each spec.
>> >> * The position of the new sections in each
TX spec should be
>> >> between "Protocol
Elements" and the References section.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ian Robinson
>> >> STSM, WebSphere Transactions Architect
>> >> IBM Hursley Lab, UK
>> >>
>> >> *Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>*
>> >>
>> >> 06/03/2008 18:43
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To
>> >> Martin Chapman
<martin.chapman@oracle.com>
>> >> cc
>> >>
"ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> >> Subject
>> >> [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add
Conformance section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Martin,
>> >>
>> >> Do you see any modifications to the conformance text
>> >proposed below in
>> >> the case of WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA?
>> >>
>> >> Thank you.
>> >> *
>> >> From:* Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
*
>> >> Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:51 AM*
>> >> To:* ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org*
>> >> Subject:* [ws-tx] Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to
>> >> WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
>> >>
>> >> This issue was raised by Martin Chapman (Oracle) during
the
>> >March 06,
>> >> 2008 TX TC call.
>> >>
>> >> Description:
>> >>
>> >> The WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
currently do
>> >> not have a conformance section.
>> >>
>> >> For example, RX specifications use the following
conformance text:
>> >>
>> >> "1.5 Conformance
>> >> An implementation is not conformant with this
specification if it
>> >> fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED
level
>> >> requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node MUST NOT use the
XML
>> >> namespace identifier for this specification (listed in
>section 1.4)
>> >> within SOAP Envelopes unless it is conformant with this
>> >specification.
>> >> Normative text within this specification takes precedence
over
>> >> normative outlines, which in turn take precedence over
the
>> >XML Schema
>> >> [XML Schema Part 1, Part 2] descriptions."
>> >>
>> >> A similar conformance section should be added to the TX
>> >> specifications.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >-
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
>OASIS TC that
>> >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and
all your TCs
>> >in OASIS
>> >at:
>>
>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.ph
>> >p
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
>> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all
>your TCs in
>> OASIS
>> at:
>>
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
Unless
stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU