[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Discussing Clarity, Ambiguity and Conformance Requirements
I think that is a question for Jamie, and it may be a matter of time sequence. I have some speculations: 1. It is very important for subsequent maintenance at OASIS to have an OASIS UOML Specification that has identical content in the body of the specification to whatever is finally approved as an ISO/IEC International Standard (IS) via JTC1. 2. That way errata produced for the OASIS Standard will also apply to the IS. 3. Also, defect reports against the IS will apply to the OASIS Standard too. 4. That is important for a smooth maintenance cycle between JTC1 and OASIS. Concerning the conformance section, you might need to do two things: 5. Prepare a version of UOML that uses ISO/IEC JTC1 conformance language (shall, shall not, may, need not, can, can not) everywhere, if that option wasn't taken. 6. Add a conformance section to whatever level you require. But, 7. Find out from Jamie whether it is better to process an edition 2 of the current UOML at least through committee specification (or just committee draft) before going to JTC1 or not. I don't know if JTC1 would accept it unless it is taken all the way to OASIS Standard though. Jamie will have a good sense of whether that is worthwhile. 8. If you could just take the 2nd edition to committee draft and wait for comments back from JTC1, you could line up a new committee draft with adjustments for comments from JTC1, take that to committee specification, send it to JTC1 as the basis for their IS document, and process it as an OASIS standard to have a matching document at OASIS. I am not at all confident about (7-8), and Jamie will have far better suggestions. I only know how difficult keeping maintenance lined up for ODF because we didn't do this and IS 26300:2006 is enough different from the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard that maintenance is tricky. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Green Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 17:24 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: UOML-X Comment; allison shi; Alex Wang Subject: Re: Discussing Clarity, Ambiguity and Conformance Requirements Thanks Dennis This is the kind of QA detail I too think we need to consider. Would submission to JTC1 provide the opportunity to improve such aspects of the specification? Or would we need a further document which we progress through the OASIS process, such as some kind of conformance profile? Best regards Steve 2009/1/20 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: > In observing the call today, I the conversation about making sure there is no ambiguity in the specifications (apart from what must be determined by implementations), I thought of the Conformance Guidelines. This is a good test, although it doesn't prevent ambiguity. > > I find this document challenging to follow, but very promising in the result it could provide: > > The 4 September 2007 Guidelines to Writing Conformance Clauses > http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html > > There are a number of specific instructions about identifying conformance targets and there is an interesting checklist in section 6: > http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html#_ Toc170119665 > > The checklist might be useful to think about. > > - Dennis > > Dennis E. Hamilton > ------------------ > NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability > mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 > http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org > > -- Stephen D. Green Document Engineering Services Ltd http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]