[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Conformance and naming
Message text written by "Lynne S. Rosenthal" > Hello All Conformance is an important topic and it is important that we all have the same basic understanding of what conformance is, what the issues that need to be addressed are, etc. From previous discussions, it seems that the TA spec should address the overall ebXML conformance as well as the general principles that each of the specifications should follow. NIST has been involved in developing conformance statements in various specifications as well as developing other conformance related products (e.g., test suites and test procedures). Mark Skall and I have volunteered to present a discussion on conformance at the Tokyo plenary. If we aren't on the plenary agenda, we would gladly present and lead a conformance discussion during the week, inviting all who are interested (how would that be arranged). Additionally, both Mark and I are willing to meet with any of the working groups to discuss the conformance clause and issues for their specification. Regards Lynne Rosenthal Conformance Testing Group NIST <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Lynne, From my view point - the key areas here are the interfaces - the TRP and RegRep ones, and the internal representation of the metamodel therein with a consistent reference system (UID's in the TA doc). Provided two systems can effectively interchange, and that the information has a consistent information model - it will work. These are the areas I see that NIST led work would be valuable - but we are not quite there yet in being able to exactly specify all this - probably post-Vancouver will be when this is stable. At least right now NIST can help collect the metrics required and generally organize this so once we have the detail - we can quickly integrate this into a sensible 'Implementors Guide'. Are these the right thoughts? Thanks, DW.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC