opencsa-liaison — archive

Groups - OpenCSA LSC Regular Conf-Call modified

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:09:00 -0000

DRAFT agenda Open SCA Liasion SubCommittee 07 Jan 2008 Dial-in: 877-633-8727/722572 Web-conf: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/sca-lsc Chair and notes: Jeff 1. Roll Chairs: Sanjay Patil, Jeff Mischkinsky Assembly: Mike Edwards, Martin Chapman Policy: Dave Booz, Ashok Malhotra Bindings: Simon Holdsworthy (absent) BPEL: Sanjay Patil, Anish Karmarkar C/C++: Bryan Aupperle J: Mike Rowley, Henning Blohm (absent) 2. Agenda Bashing no changes 3. Approval of Dec 10th meeting Minutes RAW IRC log: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ opencsa-liaison/email/archives/200712/msg00024.html (Do we want minute taker to provide the "official" summary? APPROVE minutes dec 10 - mike/bryan - UNAN 4. Review Action Items no outstanding AIs 5. Issue Management Current issues in JIRA: http://www.osoa.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa? reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/ field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=10040&component=-1 5a. Any proposed new issues? - I see no outstanding emails, so I assume not. no new issues 6. Issue Discussion 6a. liasion-1 - Define Conformance Targets - http://www.osoa.org/ jira/browse/LIAISON-1 There is a concrete proposal in jira. More discussion needed? Can we come to a resolution "soon"? Discussion about specs being "conformance targets". Assembly is the "main" spec in that it defines the topmost level of SCA conformance and puts requirements on other specs. There was general agreement on this being the way to move forward. Mike R there 2 kinds of conformance targets: SCA runtime, any SCA artifacts. SCA binding, as an artifiact, might have conformance statements. SCA binding, as a part of the SCA runtime, might have conformance statements about its behavior. MikeE notes that XSD conformance (when consuming a doc) can be handled by a generic sort of statement about checking for XSD conformance. Additional structural/semantic requirements on docs, have to be separately specified. MikeR pushes back on the usefulness of defining specific error points since we don't know when and how errors will be caught. Anish asks how to define errors independent of languages. Modify point 2. Point 3 kinds of errors need to be defined relative to the appropriate runtime behavior in question - e.g. deployment, a language C&I, etc. Dave Booz is concerned that the large policy algorithm places lots of different requirements on different artifacts, processors, etc., and that he is not sure we have the means to express those conformance requirements yet. Sanjay: Identifying the points of raising errors and standardizing the errors, if needed, is a matter of completeness of the specifications. Phrasing conformance targets is a separate matter. Michael Rowley: Conformance targets can be roughly categorized into 1) document artifacts (or constructs within them) that can be checked statically. 2) SCA runtimes, which we may require to exhibit certain behaviors. Michael Rowley: 2. For each appearance of MUST or MUST NOT, specify the construct or runtime behavior that is being constrained. Folks should continue on email a/o JIRA with some attempts to refine the proposal in liasion-1 6b. liasion-2 - Usage of RFC 2119 terms with lower-case - http:// www.osoa.org/jira/browse/LIAISON-2 more to be said? Do we just need to take a vote, if not at this meeting at the next one? We didn't get to discuss this. 7. Schedule of next meetings next meeting is next monday 14 jan 2008 same time (0800 PST) and same call-in 8. AOB none -- Jeff Mischkinsky [email protected] Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1(650) 506-1975 Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ S 4OP9 Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065