I also agree that these should be metaspecs and our own C&I
specifications (and the associated test suites) should be their first instances.
Does this mean we will have to reformat the existing C&I specs? Does this
mean we are signing up for a lot of new work? I guess these are some good
questions. The good news is that we have some drafts for the metaspecs to look
at and do some practical evaluation of the work involved, its value, etc. I don’t
think simply postponing the resolution to 1.2 on the grounds of too-much-work-not-enough-time
is a good idea. IMHO, we should reopen the issue (against 1.1) and get
some real data in front of the TC before deciding the final fate of this issue.
Otherwise we may end up wasting a lot of time on several meta-discussions!
From: Martin Chapman
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Eric Johnson; Estefan, Jeff A (3100)
Cc: OASIS Assembly
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to
Sanjay's Proposal
Not the Magna Carta? Now that sounds like Monty Python Spec
text.
As some may know the Board has been trying to propose a
different document track to cover non specs.
Unfortunately the ugly IPR issue seems to be getting in the way
– I’ve personally been on this case for almost 4 years now!
FWIW I tend to agree with Eric, that these documents should be
meta-specs, and as such will not really fall under this new category.
Martin.
From: Eric Johnson [mailto:]
Sent: 27 April 2010 18:06
To: Estefan, Jeff A (3100)
Cc: OASIS Assembly
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to
Sanjay's Proposal
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
