For the two documents in question to be part of the conformance
criteria, calling them "templates" seems insufficient.
I expect, rather, that we would treat these documents as "specs about
specs". That is, they should define what an implementation
specification MUST include, what it SHOULD include, and what it MUST
NOT include (although I'm puzzling over what appropriately fits into
the last category - "MUST NOT include the text of the Magna Carta."?
). Only when a spec satisfies those criteria can someone then turn
around and claim that their implementation type is conforming.
Of course, as we discussed on the call today, it is really up to the TC
to decide how we approach this problem, but that's my take. That's why
I prefer opening new issues against 1.2.
I still think it is useful to talk to Mary or other OASIS staff to see
if this question has arisen before, and how it has been dealt with.
-Eric.
On 04/27/2010 09:34 AM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:
Mike,
As
mentioned on today’s call, we’ll need to ask the
assistance of Mary and perhaps other members of the OASIS staff about
this
topic, but I do not see how these templates would need to be elevated
to formal
OASIS Specification status because unlike the SCA Assembly Model
specification,
which truly is an OASIS spec as it contains “specification”
language, these proposed documents contain requirements language (in
the form
of templates) that are intended to assist the user community with
verifying an
SCA Runtime’s conformance with a SCA Assembly Model specification.
Looking
over the various OASIS document templates (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/),
I
do not see on in place for such a technical work product.
Raising
these documents to full Specification level will most certainly
impede our progress on ratifying the SCA Assembly Model v1.1 spec and I
hope
that is not the case, but we certainly need to find out sooner rather
than
later.
Would
you like me to reach out to Mary and the OASIS staff about
this or would you and/or Martin as TC co-chairs prefer to initiative
the
question? Just let me know.
Cheers…
-
Jeff E.
From: Mike
Edwards
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:25 PM
To: OASIS Assembly
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update
to
Sanjay's Proposal
Folks,
Since
some
comments on this thread indicated that some people did not see that
there were
a pair of
documents
attached
to the original email that started the thread, I have assumed that
there have been
some
transmission
problems and I have posted copies of the documents into the OASIS
web site.
They
can be
accessed here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/37466/sca-assembly-1.1-impl-type-documentation-wd02.odt
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/37467/sca-assembly-1.1-testsuite-adaptation-wd02.odt
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:
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
