On Apr 27, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>
> I also agree that these should be metaspecs and our own C&I
> specifications (and the associated test suites) should be their
> first instances.
+1 (assuming we undertake this work)
> Does this mean we will have to reformat the existing C&I specs?
I would hope not, but i guess it would depend upon the final form of
the new metaspec. BTW: i would hope that having to reformat the
existing C&I specs would not be used as an argument for doing
something quick and dirty in formulating the metaspec simply because
it would delay 1.1 too much if we did.
> Does this mean we are signing up for a lot of new work?
yes. I don't see it could possibly be otherwise - not if we want to do
a proper job.
> 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!
I do agree that if we don't vote yes/no for re-opening against 1.1 at
the next meeting we will be wasting (even) more time on meta-
discussions.
I don't follow your conclusion that why discussing this in the 1.2
timeframe would end up wasting a lot of time.
cheers,
jeff
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506-1975
and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
