[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] RE: Issue 118 - Add Conformance section to WS-Coordination, WS-AT and WS-BA specifications
On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Ian Robinson wrote: > > Per the TC process, the TC will of course nominate which of the > multiple copies of the specification document (PDF, Word, HTML) is > authoratative. That has not been in question. my interpretation is that multiple copies of schemas, e.g. fall under the same rule -- if you want to get really picky we can have a spec lawyering discussion of what is meant by "specification" and "document", but i think the intent is pretty clear - having helped write the rule -- we want one authoritative version of what TC's adopt. If we take your implicit interpretation, what's in the "specification document", not the external files are authoritative. As I said, if that's what the TC wants that's ok by me. If the TC wants to say something else that's fine too. Either way there will be a well- defined precedence. cheers, jeff > > > Regards, > Ian Robinson > > > > Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com> > 26/03/2008 16:53 > > To > 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 > > > > > > hi, > Just to add my $.02: > > While it is certainly a goal to make sure that various copies of > "things" all say the same thing, as mary and others have pointed out, > "stuff happens". > > The (new) OASIS rules REQUIRE that TC's designate which of multiple > copies are considered to be the authoritative, in the event of a > discrepancy. IMO you don't have a choice on whether you'd like to or > not. What you do have a choice about is deciding which copy is > authoritative. My suggestion is that the TC do that or the "spec" > will be authoritative, by default. I'd say that's a poor choice, > since (as has been pointed out) it is the external files that people > will try to use, but it is up to the TC to decide. > > Sure you can try to use the errata process to fix things, and > eventually inconsistencies will be ironed out. The problem is what > happens in the meantime. (We won't get into the fact that the > "errata" process is essentially useless, since it says only non- > substantive changes are allowed. :-) > > I disagree that having precedence rules are arbitrary - to my mind > that is a red herring. Let's say you only had one copy published. It > obviously would be authoritative. Let's say there was an error in it. > It is still the approved specification and everyone has to live with > it. If it says to do A, and "someone" may have meant it to say B, you > still have to do A. > > It is the responsibility of the TC to precisely and unambiguously > identify the authoritative description of what MUST be implemented. > People don't get to pick and choose what they want to implement (and > claim conformance). > > cheers, > jeff > > > On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Ian Robinson wrote: > > > > > Just to clarify. > > The TX TC does not have copies of WSDL and Schema embedded in the > > spec - we discussed and agreed previously that "multiple copies are > > bad" so we really do not have this more general concern. Due > > diligence is performed on all our spec materials - WSDL, schema and > > normative text. > > > > There have been TC member arguments made in favour and against > > adding a precedence statement. The argument for is essentially to > > show that we have thought about it. The argument against is > > essentially that an inconsistency should be fixed rather than > > having an arbitrary precedence applied. I have asked the TC members > > to be prepared for a TC ballot on this issue next week. > > > > Regards, > > Ian Robinson > > > > > > > > "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > > Sent by: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com> > > 20/03/2008 16:39 > > Please respond to > > <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > > > > To > > "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ...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.php > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jeff > Mischkinsky > jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services > Standards +1(650) > 506-1975 > Consulting Member Technical > Staff > 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ > S 2OP9 > Oracle > > Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1(650) 506-1975 Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ S 2OP9 Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]