[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison] Reference dependencies in various SCA specs
Anish, can we spell out those solutions? - Allow 2.19 to apply at the CSD level - Have TC Admin provide the future URI's for the referenced CSD's to the editors for use when they approve their WD for CSD - ? I'm not sure I saw the third ... Also, another possible solution: Where a published CSD## already exists and the WD will result in publication of CSD##+1, use the "Latest Version" URL in the cross-reference. That will always resolve to the latest CSD for the referenced specification. I'll add the proposals to my write up... /chet On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote: > Paul, > > Thanks for correcting that. Should have been more precise in my email. > But in the context of the current discussion, the SCA TCs are looking to go > to CS soon. The problem they face is that to go to CS, the current rules > will require infinite number of CSDs and PRs because of the > cross-dependencies, unless we find a way to break the cycle. I have proposed > three different ways to move this forward. Perhaps there are more. > > -Anish > -- > > On 8/8/2011 7:37 PM, Paul Knight wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> A point which I think may be misquoted and/or misunderstood: >> >> "the requirement of new PRs for any change" >> >> mentioned by both Jeff and Anish is not �a "requirement". >> >> A PR is needed ONLY if the immediately following step is a vote for >> making the Work Product a Committee Specification (or Note). �TCs should >> not believe that they have to do a new PR every time they produce a CSD. >> >> In fact, avoiding doing the PR until all the cross-referenced Work >> Products are at stable CSD states may provide a known and fairly stable >> target URI (i.e, the upcoming PR version), which may allow some >> efficiencies for everyone. >> >> However, in any case, Chet is setting up a process to get concerns and >> approaches clarified. >> >> Best regards, >> Paul >> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Jeff Mischkinsky >> <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com <mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >> � �we can also allocate some time in Process Committee if that would be >> � �desireable/easier. >> >> � �FWIW I think the problem is that the SCA TCs are not really >> � �completely independent of each other. (I think of them as "almost >> � �separable".) When we were first developing SCA we discussed whether >> � �we should have one big TC or break things up to make development >> � �more manageable realizing that the trade-off was that we would have >> � �mutual dependencies. >> >> � �That said i'm not sure the real issue is independent TCs. The mutual >> � �dependencies would exist even if there was one TC. Having multiple >> � �TCs makes it more complicated because its harder to coordinate >> � �simultaneous votes on mutually dependent specs across TCs. I'm >> � �trying to remember why we don't allow DCR's for CSD's. I *think* it >> � �might be because we thought that since these were "only drafts", it >> � �was ok if there were some inconsistencies/bugs and not worth the >> � �effort to allow DCR's. >> >> � �The suggestion to allow TC's to decide if a change is not >> � �"substantive enough" is that we were never able to agree on a >> � �definition of what "enough" meant and TCs will almost always declare >> � �a change to be non-substantive, regardless. >> >> � �Actually we already have that issue on the Process Committee's >> � �agenda as part of figuring out if the requirement of new PRs for any >> � �change is creating too many PRs. >> >> � �cheers, >> � � �jeff >> >> >> � �On Aug 08, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Chet Ensign wrote: >> >> � � � �Mike, Sanjay - Actually, before launching on a broad chat, I >> � � � �think it would make more sense for us to talk and frame the >> � � � �problem to be solved so that conversation can be productive. Can >> � � � �I set up a call with both of you, maybe for Wednesday or >> � � � �Thursday? That will give me some time to draft a first pass at a >> � � � �problem statement that we can use to set up productive >> � � � �discussion with others. >> >> � � � �/chet >> >> � � � �On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Patil, Sanjay >> � � � �<sanjay.patil@sap.com <mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com>> wrote: >> � � � �I think it makes a lot of sense to have a conference call to >> � � � �jointly define the problem and brainstorm the potentially >> � � � �solutions. However, scheduling a call with the many interested >> � � � �parties from the various time zones might become tricky. One >> � � � �option may be to check with the SCA Assembly TC chairs if they >> � � � �would be ok to allocate some of their weekly meeting time (Tue 8 >> � � � �AM PST) for this topic (assuming that Chet and other concerned >> � � � �OASIS staff / TAB members can make it). I believe that most of >> � � � �the SCA TC chairs are also members of the SCA Assembly TC and >> � � � �moreover the SCA TCs typically look forward to the SCA Assembly >> � � � �TC to resolve such cross-cutting issues and set the precedent. >> � � � �Mike/Martin, any thoughts in this regard? >> >> >> >> � � � �Sanjay >> >> >> >> � � � �From: Chet Ensign [mailto:chet.ensign@oasis-__open.org >> � � � �<mailto:chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>] >> � � � �Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:20 PM >> � � � �To: Patil, Sanjay >> � � � �Cc: Mike Edwards; Anish Karmarkar; OASIS Liaison; OASIS TAB; >> � � � �Paul Knight; Robin Cover >> � � � �Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison] Reference dependencies in various >> � � � �SCA specs >> >> >> >> � � � �Sanjay, Mike et al - We started a discussion on this subject at >> � � � �the TAB F2F and it is on our agenda. If you all would like, I >> � � � �would like to schedule a conference call so that we can discuss >> � � � �together and ... >> >> >> >> � � � �- Jointly define the problem(s) - typically the most difficult >> � � � �part of any of these conversations <grin> >> >> � � � �- Discuss what limitations of the current process / rules >> � � � �contribute to the problem(s) >> >> � � � �- Brainstorm possible modifications that could resolve the >> � � � �problem(s) >> >> >> >> � � � �Is that something you all are interested in doing? >> >> � � � �Best, >> >> >> >> � � � �/chet >> >> � � � �On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Patil, Sanjay >> � � � �<sanjay.patil@sap.com <mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> � � � �Do other TC chairs have any further viewpoints on this topic? >> >> >> >> � � � �Since the resolution of this issue may involve changes to >> � � � �procedures involving the TC Admin (and potentially the TC >> � � � �process!), we need to decide how to take this issue forward. At >> � � � �the minimum, I think we should inform the TC Admin about our >> � � � �opinions and start the discussion. I am taking the liberty to >> � � � �copy Chet Ensign on this email thread to set the ball rolling. >> >> >> >> � � � �Best wishes, >> >> � � � �Sanjay >> >> >> >> � � � �From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.__com >> � � � �<mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>] >> � � � �Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:33 AM >> � � � �To: Patil, Sanjay >> � � � �Cc: Anish Karmarkar; OASIS Liaison >> � � � �Subject: RE: [opencsa-liaison] Reference dependencies in various >> � � � �SCA specs >> >> >> >> >> � � � �Sanjay, >> >> � � � �I agree with your views. >> >> � � � �In the latest round of changes, for example, I think that >> � � � �Assembly is not affected by the changes to the >> � � � �other specifications (Policy, WS-Binding, Java...), even though >> � � � �those changes are normative. >> >> � � � �As a result, in my opinion, updating the Assembly spec to >> � � � �reference the latest CSDs of the other specs >> � � � �is a purely editorial process. >> >> � � � �Each TC may need to take a vote that agrees this for any >> � � � �particular spec, but once that vote has >> � � � �taken place, the update should be purely mechanical. �No new >> � � � �public reviews are required. >> >> >> � � � �Yours, Mike >> >> � � � �Dr Mike Edwards >> >> � � � � �Mail Point 137, Hursley Park >> >> � � � �<image001.gif> >> >> >> � � � �STSM >> >> � � � � �Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN >> >> � � � �SCA, Cloud Computing & Services Standards >> >> � � � � �United Kingdom >> >> � � � �Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC >> >> >> >> � � � �Chair UK ISO SC38 mirror committee (Cloud & SOA) >> >> >> >> � � � �IBM Software Group >> >> >> >> � � � �Phone: >> >> � � � �+44-1962 818014 <tel:%2B44-1962%20818014> >> >> >> >> � � � �Mobile: >> >> � � � �+44-7802-467431 <tel:%2B44-7802-467431> (274097) >> >> >> >> � � � �e-mail: >> >> � � � �mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com <mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> � � � �From: >> >> � � � �"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com >> <mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com>> >> >> � � � �To: >> >> � � � �Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com >> � � � �<mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>>, OASIS Liaison >> � � � �<opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-__open.org >> � � � �<mailto:opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org>> >> >> � � � �Date: >> >> � � � �02/08/2011 17:56 >> >> � � � �Subject: >> >> � � � �RE: [opencsa-liaison] Reference dependencies in various SCA specs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> � � � �I think the option 3 provides the required solution while >> � � � �retaining the independence for the TCs to decide and follow >> � � � �their own schedule. During CSD publication and PR, specs can >> � � � �make references to the existing source material as of that time. >> � � � �Later, it should be allowed to update the references without >> � � � �having to go for another round of PR. I think it is reasonable >> � � � �to trust the TCs in making a determination about whether a >> � � � �change in a reference is significant enough to require another >> � � � �round of PR or not. >> >> � � � �Sanjay >> >> >> � � � �-----Original Message----- >> � � � �From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@__oracle.com >> � � � �<mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>] >> � � � �Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:22 AM >> � � � �To: OASIS Liaison >> � � � �Subject: [opencsa-liaison] Reference dependencies in various SCA >> � � � �specs >> >> � � � �As we all know, specs in all the SCA TCs have dependencies on each >> � � � �other. For example, Assembly has a normative reference to Policy >> and >> � � � �WS-Binding. To conform to Assembly one has to conform to Policy and >> � � � �WS-Binding. Policy in turn depends on Assembly. WS-Binding >> � � � �depends on >> � � � �Assembly/Policy. The dependency graph is cyclic. >> >> � � � �A similar problem exists in SCA-J TC but without any cycles [1]. >> >> � � � �OASIS TC process solves this problem of cyclic references by using >> � � � �designated cross references [2]. Unfortunately, CSDs cannot use >> this >> � � � �mechanism as the process explicitly excludes it. So, two specs A >> � � � �and B >> � � � �that depend on each other, will be in an infinite loop wrt updating >> � � � �their normative references. Further compounding the problem (but >> � � � �is an >> � � � �independent issue) is the fact that the new process requires at >> � � � �least >> � � � �15-days PR for any change (except the changes on the front >> � � � �page). So any >> � � � �time spec A or B is updated to update its normative reference it >> � � � �has to >> � � � �be PRed. >> >> � � � �I see three possible solutions to this: >> � � � �1) Fix the process to allow DCRs for CSDs (this is the only long >> � � � �term >> � � � �solution, I think). >> � � � �2) Use the solution in [1] where spec A instead of using WDXX >> � � � �reference >> � � � �of B, uses the CSDYY reference of B. Where CSDYY is the what >> � � � �will happen >> � � � �to WDXX when the TC Admin processes the request for WDXX to be >> � � � �published >> � � � �as CSD. This means that the CSDs of A and B should be >> � � � �coordinated to go >> � � � �in the TC Admin queue around the same time. >> � � � �3) Get TC admin to update normative references when there is no >> � � � �material >> � � � �change. For example, in (2) above, WDXX and CSDYY are going to be >> � � � �identical specs except for the front page. If spec A references >> � � � �WDXX, >> � � � �the TC admin should be able to update that reference to CSDYY. A >> � � � �similar >> � � � �update would have to be done to spec B. >> >> � � � �-Anish >> � � � �-- >> >> � � � �[1] >> � � � �http://lists.oasis-open.org/__archives/sca-j/201107/__msg00028.html >> � � � �<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/201107/msg00028.html> >> � � � �[2] >> >> �http://www.oasis-open.org/__policies-guidelines/tc-__process#crossRefs >> >> �<http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#crossRefs> >> >> >> �------------------------------__------------------------------__--------- >> � � � �To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC >> that >> � � � �generates this mail. �Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> >> �https://www.oasis-open.org/__apps/org/workgroup/portal/my___workgroups.php >> >> �<https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> � � � �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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> � � � �-- >> >> � � � �/chet >> � � � �---------------- >> � � � �Chet Ensign >> � � � �Director of Standards Development and TC Administration >> � � � �OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society >> � � � �http://www.oasis-open.org >> >> � � � �Primary: +1 973-378-3472 <tel:%2B1%20973-378-3472> >> � � � �Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 <tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393> >> >> � � � �Follow OASIS on: >> � � � �LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen >> � � � �Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen >> � � � �Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open >> >> >> >> >> � � � �-- >> >> � � � �/chet >> � � � �---------------- >> � � � �Chet Ensign >> � � � �Director of Standards Development and TC Administration >> � � � �OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society >> � � � �http://www.oasis-open.org >> >> � � � �Primary: +1 973-378-3472 <tel:%2B1%20973-378-3472> >> � � � �Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 <tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393> >> >> � � � �Follow OASIS on: >> � � � �LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen >> � � � �Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen >> � � � �Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open >> >> >> � �-- >> � �Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com >> � �<mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com> >> � �Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506-1975 >> � �<tel:%2B1%28650%29506-1975> >> � � � � � �and Web Services Standards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �500 >> � �Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9 >> � �Oracle >> � � �Redwood Shores, CA 94065 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul Knight <mailto:paul.knight@oasis-open.org> �- Tel: +1 781-861-1013 >> OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org/> - Advancing open standards for the >> information society >> Document Process Analyst >> <http://www.oasis-open.org/people/staff/paul-knight> >> >> > -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-378-3472 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: � �http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: � � � �http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: �http://facebook.com/oasis.open
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]