> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:52
> To: Elysa Jones
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [emergency] Statement of Use
>
> Elysa,
>
> OASIS changed the rules here from previously - when ANY
> statement of use was acceptable.
>
> Now they want some level of conformance clauses in the
> specification itself.
>
> "
> A specification that is approved by the TC at the Public
> Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level
> must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered
> conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the
> specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to
> the specification (or any optional portion thereof).*
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#transition_2_18>
> "
>
> They have some samples of such conformance clauses they have in mind.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Rex - that creating actual XML
> instances for your own use purposes - coupled with validation
> and documentation that forinstance a CAM template can then
> enforce against those samples - should cover off a use
> statement - in that this shows that the specification
> actually works for a real scenario.
We have a conformance section in this standard. It says, more or less, that
a conforming "HAVE report" is an XML document that validates against the
HAVE schema and meets the additional requirements in the standard, and a
conforming "HAVE report producer" is a software entity that produces a
conforming report when it is expected to do so. (It doesn't matter how such
an expectation is set and how the report is produced and made available.)
So I think that a statement of use from an organization should say,
essentially, that that organization has been able to implement a conforming
producer. The actual form of the producer doesn't matter.
Alessandro
>
> I believe that is the most important thing these statements
> provide - is that people know the specification has actually
> been tried in practice - rather than just being entirely theoretical.
>
> Thanks, DW
>
>
