[ws-tx] Issue 118 - Motions

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

There has been plenty of discussion
on the proposed conformance section for the 3 specifications. 
I will set up 2 web ballots tomorrow.

The first ballot will be a motion to
approve the proposed text (from [1]) in a new conformance section:

"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."


The second ballot will be on the question
of whether the TC believes we need to state an order of preference between
our specification materials to act as an adjudicator in the case that our
specification materials contain inconsistencies. There have been two approaches
discussed:
1) the WSDL, schema and normative specification
together form the specification material - one is not authoratative with
respect to the others. An inconsistency is a mistake and should be reported
as such. Any stated order of precedence is arbitrary and is not helpful
if a mistake is found in the artefact assigned as "most authoratative".
An appropriate statement in support of this approach, based on Peter's
suggestion in [2] is:
“There
should be no inconsistencies found between any of the normative text within
this specification, the normative outlines, the XML Schema *_[XML-Schema1]_*
<#XMLSchema1> *_[XML-Schema2]_* <#XMLSchema2>* definitions,
*and the WSDL *_[WSDL]_* <#WSDL>* *descriptions, and so no general
precedence rule is defined. If an inconsistency is observed then it should
be reported as a comment on the specification as described in the "Status"
section above.”
Such a statement could appear in the
“XSD and WSDL Files” section of the specs. 
2) if an inconsistency is found between
the WSDL, schema and normative specification, then interoperability requires
an order of preference to be defined to determine which competing statement
should be considered authoratative. If we chose this approach we would
need to further discuss which order of precedence is most appropriate.


[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200803/msg00017.html
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200803/msg00016.html


Regards,
Ian Robinson

---

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

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature