Fw: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues

Anish

Thank you for bringing these issues
to our attention; we discussed them at Friday's SC teleconference with
the following outcome:

Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs?

The Steering Committee (SC) recommends to each SCA
Technical Committee that a single coordinated version number should be
implemented across all target deliverable specifications. The SC further
recommends that the current assumed version number should be Version "1.1",
but the TCs could consider a future coordinated change to "V2.0"
should technical content (for example compatibility issues) make that reasonable.

Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec

The Steering Committee (SC) recommends to each SCA
Technical Committee to use the RFC 2119 keywords along with the following
restrictions in their specifications: 

a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for example, RFC
2119 keywords MUST be capitalized) 

b) Use of lower-case 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. When the
use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the implications wrt conformance,
a suitable synonym will be found. 

c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For example
'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC should not use multiple
forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC should use 'MUST' instead of 'SHALL'
and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL NOT' through out the spec.

As, by definition, these "Liaision
Issues" afftect all SCA TCs, I am forwarding the SC response to each
TC mailing list.

Graham Barber

On behalf of the Open CSA Member Section
Steering Committee.

Graham J Barber,

Program Director, SOA Partnerships,

      

      Graham Barber@IBMGB

Phone:

Internal:                  
             245702,  External:
+44 (0)1962 815702

Secretary (Yulia):          247672,    
               +44 (0)1962 817672

Cellphone (Worldwide):              
                     +44
(0)7880 734005

----- Forwarded by Graham
Barber/UK/IBM on 01/10/2007 11:11 -----

Anish Karmarkar <>

24/09/2007 18:30

To



cc

"Patil, Sanjay" <>,
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Martin Chapman <>,
Ashok Malhotra <>, David Booz <>,
Michael Rowley <>, "Blohm, Henning" <>,
Bryan Aupperle <>, Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB

Subject

[opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues

Open CSA SC,

The SCA BPEL TC has two issues, which were discussed during the recently

concluded F2F, that require coordination across all SCA TCs. Since there

is no official liaison mechanism set up, on behalf of SCA BPEL TC I'm 

bringing these issues to the attention of the Open CSA SC. I would like

to request the SC to coordinate this across all the SCA TCs.

Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs?

Should the version of the SCA specs be 2.0 or 1.x? Or something else?

It is certainly possible to have the assembly specification be version

2.0 and BPEL C&I specification version that depends on assembly 2.0
be 

1.5, for example. But such version numbers will be very confusing. Given

that the TCs are affiliated with the Open CSA MS, a better approach 

would be to have the same version number for all the initial output 

specifications of the various SCA TC. If not, at the very least, have 

the number before the "." be the same. This will require coordination

and agreement across all the TCs.

Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec

In aligning the spec with the OASIS template and accepting the OASIS TAB

recommendations, the SCA BPEL TC decided to use the RFC 2119 keywords 

along with the following restriction:

a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for example, RFC

2119 keywords MUST be capitalized)

b) use of lowercase 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. When the

use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the implications wrt 

conformance, a suitable synonym will be found.

c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For 

example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC decided to not 

use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC decided to use 

'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL NOT' through

out the spec.

Please note that the use of RFC 2119 keywords affect conformance. 

Consistency across the SCA spec with respect to conformance and the use

of normative conformance lanaguage is highly desirable.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks and regards.

-Anish Karmarkar

SCA BPEL TC co-chair on behalf of SCA BPEL TC

--

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