|Subject:||RE: [oic] FW: [office] Conformance Definition Proposal|
|From:||Dennis E. Hamilton (denn...@acm.org)|
|Date:||Jan 16, 2009 10:43:48 am|
You might compare this with the Conformance Definition currently in Section 1.5 of ODF 1.0 and 1.1. The proposed statement here http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=30360 is for ODF 1.2.
Also, you might want to look at the new OASIS Requirement for Conformance in specifications. It calls for more specificity than what is in the ODF 1.2 draft, so far. I'm not sure how far we will get to mastering that for 1.2. It is work in progress. http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html (Note that the alternative keywords are being used starting with IS 26300 and continuing into ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2)
The checklist at the end is useful. In a way, it is a filter we need to apply in regard to test assertions, identification of gaps in specifications, and in characterizing a particular test:
1. Are you using the right keywords from RFC 2119, and in uppercase? 2. If you are using ISO keywords, have you explicitly stated this in the specification ? 3. Have you defined your Conformance Target(s)? 4. Are all Normative Statements clearly identifiable? 5. Are all Normative Statements understandable, clear, and concise? 6. Are all Normative Statements referenced directly or indirectly from a Conformance Clause? Note: A Normative Statement that is not related to any Conformance Clause has no meaning 7. Is each Normative Statement related to a Conformance Target(s)? 8. Is there a separate section containing the Conformance Clauses? 9. Are all Conformance Clauses clearly identifiable? 10. Are all Conformance Clauses understandable, clear, and concise? 11. Are the top-level Conformance Clauses clearly identified and related to a Conformance Target? 12. Is the relationship between all Conformance Clauses clearly defined using combinations of combined, alternative, level and profile styles? 14. Are all Conformance Clauses either top-level or referenced directly or indirectly from a top-level Conformance Clause? Note: A Conformance Clause that is not related to any top-level Conformance Clause has no meaning. 15. Are there any contradictions between Normative Statements on the one hand and a Conformance Clause and any referenced Conformance Clauses on the other hand? If there are, have these been explicitly noted and have any rules to over-ride the contradictions been made?
[For those of us who seem to be specification lawyers, it is important to recognize that OASIS recognizes descriptive text as relevant in specifications although such text is not by its nature a normative statement. Normative language is apparently tied quite clearly to conformance conditions, not to descriptive facts that become the ground for the specification and its conformance conditions. I need to mull on that one. However, there may be several conformance targets and many conformance clauses before we are done.]
PS: With regard to editorializing about the ODF 1.2 work over here, I suppose it might be better to make use of the office-comment list over there (with ODF TC members using the office list directly). The office-comment list is taken seriously and it is tracked by the committee. (The same will apply to oic-comment, presumably.)
-----Original Message----- From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart...@fedict.be] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00030.html Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 01:48 To: oi...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [oic] FW: [office] Conformance Definition Proposal
For those who aren't following the main ODF TC, it might be interesting to take a look at the proposal.
Personally, I would rather have one single conformance level, instead of having both a strict and a loosely level...
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg [mailto:Mich...@Sun.COM] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00110.html Sent: Thu 1/15/2009 10:37 AM To: off...@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Robert Weir Subject: [office] Conformance Definition Proposal
Dear TC members,
I would like to discuss the below proposal in the next TC call, in particular whether we want to have something like a loose conformance.
Since the current conformance definitions need to be modified, it would be good if we could agree on one or the other alternative as basis for any future work on the conformance definition, if required. If one of the two proposals already is acceptable, then that's fine for me, too, of cause.
This would allow us to integrate the proposal into the specification, and would allow us to work on further items that depend on the conformance clauses. These are the schemas and the conformance clauses for the other parts.
[ ... ]
Document Description: Conformance Definition Proposal
View Document Details: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=30360
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
-OASIS Open Administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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