[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Re:
> You seem to have missed my post that OASIS approval process for a
> standard requires three member companies to vouch for using the spec
> successfully, which also happens to mean interoperably, as in it
> being read, loaded and displaying each company's web services
> portlets.
"... which also happens to mean interoperably, as in it
being read, loaded and displaying each company's web services
portlets"
Hmmm, Rex, could you clarify? I'm imperfectly informed about the
OASIS rules, and endeavor never to engage in casuistry, which is
typically done by Karl Best, but I'm not aware that the OASIS
process has any interoperability requirement. Your source?
You could intend to describe that the OASIS WSRP TC has done [1]
but that's not what the quoted paragraph asserts.
At the canonical location [as of 2004-04-03 11:52 CST]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standard
sub 'Member Approval' we have the requirement:
"Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations
that they are successfully using the specification consistently
with the OASIS IPR Policy"
Within the range of my (fallible) memory and (incomplete) tracking,
the notion of "successfully using" has been interpreted very
loosely to mean (simply) ""successfully using". Nothing is said
about the kind of software, whether it's private/internal, or
any such thing. In one memorable case, one or more members
made a declaration that it(s company) had "successfully
implemented" a Committee Specification. Subsequently, a very late
patent claim was made upon the technology (possibly) necessary to
"implement" the specification, with RAND terms. So the declaration
was changed to meet the nominal requirement, as "implementation"
might have suggested particular code implementation and resulted in
a demand for a hefty royalty payment. The new declaration simply said,
as is required:
"successfully using the specification"
Who knows? Maybe they printed the spec and successfully used it
as a doorstop, violating no patents.
That said (and facetiously in the preceding sentence), many OASIS
Technical Committees work very hard at achieving and demonstrating
interoperability. OASIS interop events are routine [1], held at
major XML conferences, RSA conferences, Burton Catalyst conferences,
etc. Sometimes these events are held prior to a Committee Specification
being balloted for approval as an OASIS Standard (to reveal spec
ambiguities and errors); sometimes these events are held after
spec approval in order to establish rules for best practice
implementations.
OASIS standards directly address "interoperability within and between
marketplaces" but (as far as I know) there are no formal requirements
for interop as part of the OASIS process.
===============
[1] WSRP Interop
http://xml.coverpages.org/WSRP-InteropDemo2004.html
[2] OASIS interop events
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/announce/200312/msg00004.html
"OASIS Interop Demos Showcase ebXML, SAML, UBL, WS-Reliability, and XACML"
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-02-19-a.html
"OASIS SAML Interoperability Event Demonstrates Single
Sign-On at RSA Conference"
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-06-27-b.html
"OASIS Member Companies Host SPML Identity Management
Interoperability Event"
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-07-15-a.html
"Burton Group's Catalyst Conference Features SAML Interoperability Event"
-----------------------------------------------------
Robin Cover
XML Cover Pages
WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html
ISOGEN: rcover@innodata-isogen.com
OASIS: robin.cover@oasis-open.org
--------------------------
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Rex Brooks wrote:
> You seem to have missed my post that OASIS approval process for a
> standard requires three member companies to vouch for using the spec
> successfully, which also happens to mean interoperably, as in it
> being read, loaded and displaying each company's web services
> portlets. For WSRP that included: * BEA * Citrix * Fujitsu * IBM *
> Oracle * Plumtree * Sun * Vignette. For a loooong set of example
> portlets from Oracle see:
>
> http://psprovider.oracle.com/jsp/catalog/search/search_results.jsp?sort_order=ch.COMPANY_NAME&sort_direction=ASC&portlet_keyword=&portlet_category=&provider_type=&portal_version=&supported_language=&company_category=&company_name=Oracle9%3Ci%3Ei%3C%2Fi%3EAS
>
> To view Oracle's interoperability test site, inlcuding samples of
> WSRP/JSR168 compatible portlets visit:
>
> http://portalstandards.oracle.com
>
> For IBM's WSRP test kit:
>
> http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/wsrptk
>
> For the Portlet Open Source Trading Post (for wsrp
> -conformant/compliant portlets) started by Ross Fubini of Plumtree:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/portlet-opensrc/
>
> Citrix also has resources for .Net.
>
> Obviously, I only speak to WSRP interoperability, though I believe
> WS-A is fairly well accepted for the run of that WS-I's specs.
> WS-Eventing could prove worthy, but I hate the names Source and
> Sink--like voodoo hocuspocus when its just another pub-sub model. As
> for all the frameworks, I'll reserve judgement, but I like WSBPEL's
> chances of providing substantial interoperable value for business
> rules within web services and web apps running inside web services.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 4:51 PM +0100 4/3/04, Paul Sumner Downey wrote:
> >What seems to be lost in all this "flower blooming" is
> >the notion of interoperability - the only reason to even
> >look at Web services.
> >
> >No one is going to use *any* of these specs, regardless of
> >how great they are or who publishes them if they don't
> >interoperate - and i mean in product shipped by a wide
> >variety of vendors, not just on paper or in some one-off
> >fest held behind closed doors.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >--
> >Paul Sumner Downey
> >http://blog.whatfettle.com
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
> >Sent: 02 April 2004 21:04
> >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org DEV
> >Subject: [xml-dev] WS-Emperor naked?
> >
> >
> >Would anyone here like to argue that the list found in
> >
> > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/04/01/WS-Mumble
> >
> >is coherent, or sensible, or viable, or generally that the parrot is
> >not dead?
> >
> > -Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> >manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
> W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
> Email: rexb@starbourne.com
> Tel: 510-849-2309
> Fax: By Request
|
