[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WS-Emperor naked?
Re: > You seem to have missed my post that OASIS approval process for a > standard requires three member companies to vouch for using the spec > successfully, which also happens to mean interoperably, as in it > being read, loaded and displaying each company's web services > portlets. "... which also happens to mean interoperably, as in it being read, loaded and displaying each company's web services portlets" Hmmm, Rex, could you clarify? I'm imperfectly informed about the OASIS rules, and endeavor never to engage in casuistry, which is typically done by Karl Best, but I'm not aware that the OASIS process has any interoperability requirement. Your source? You could intend to describe that the OASIS WSRP TC has done [1] but that's not what the quoted paragraph asserts. At the canonical location [as of 2004-04-03 11:52 CST] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standard sub 'Member Approval' we have the requirement: "Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully using the specification consistently with the OASIS IPR Policy" Within the range of my (fallible) memory and (incomplete) tracking, the notion of "successfully using" has been interpreted very loosely to mean (simply) ""successfully using". Nothing is said about the kind of software, whether it's private/internal, or any such thing. In one memorable case, one or more members made a declaration that it(s company) had "successfully implemented" a Committee Specification. Subsequently, a very late patent claim was made upon the technology (possibly) necessary to "implement" the specification, with RAND terms. So the declaration was changed to meet the nominal requirement, as "implementation" might have suggested particular code implementation and resulted in a demand for a hefty royalty payment. The new declaration simply said, as is required: "successfully using the specification" Who knows? Maybe they printed the spec and successfully used it as a doorstop, violating no patents. That said (and facetiously in the preceding sentence), many OASIS Technical Committees work very hard at achieving and demonstrating interoperability. OASIS interop events are routine [1], held at major XML conferences, RSA conferences, Burton Catalyst conferences, etc. Sometimes these events are held prior to a Committee Specification being balloted for approval as an OASIS Standard (to reveal spec ambiguities and errors); sometimes these events are held after spec approval in order to establish rules for best practice implementations. OASIS standards directly address "interoperability within and between marketplaces" but (as far as I know) there are no formal requirements for interop as part of the OASIS process. =============== [1] WSRP Interop http://xml.coverpages.org/WSRP-InteropDemo2004.html [2] OASIS interop events http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/announce/200312/msg00004.html "OASIS Interop Demos Showcase ebXML, SAML, UBL, WS-Reliability, and XACML" http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-02-19-a.html "OASIS SAML Interoperability Event Demonstrates Single Sign-On at RSA Conference" http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-06-27-b.html "OASIS Member Companies Host SPML Identity Management Interoperability Event" http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-07-15-a.html "Burton Group's Catalyst Conference Features SAML Interoperability Event" ----------------------------------------------------- Robin Cover XML Cover Pages WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html ISOGEN: rcover@i... OASIS: robin.cover@o... -------------------------- On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Rex Brooks wrote: > You seem to have missed my post that OASIS approval process for a > standard requires three member companies to vouch for using the spec > successfully, which also happens to mean interoperably, as in it > being read, loaded and displaying each company's web services > portlets. For WSRP that included: * BEA * Citrix * Fujitsu * IBM * > Oracle * Plumtree * Sun * Vignette. For a loooong set of example > portlets from Oracle see: > > http://psprovider.oracle.com/jsp/catalog/search/search_results.jsp?sort_order=ch.COMPANY_NAME&sort_direction=ASC&portlet_keyword=&portlet_category=&provider_type=&portal_version=&supported_language=&company_category=&company_name=Oracle9%3Ci%3Ei%3C%2Fi%3EAS > > To view Oracle's interoperability test site, inlcuding samples of > WSRP/JSR168 compatible portlets visit: > > http://portalstandards.oracle.com > > For IBM's WSRP test kit: > > http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/wsrptk > > For the Portlet Open Source Trading Post (for wsrp > -conformant/compliant portlets) started by Ross Fubini of Plumtree: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/portlet-opensrc/ > > Citrix also has resources for .Net. > > Obviously, I only speak to WSRP interoperability, though I believe > WS-A is fairly well accepted for the run of that WS-I's specs. > WS-Eventing could prove worthy, but I hate the names Source and > Sink--like voodoo hocuspocus when its just another pub-sub model. As > for all the frameworks, I'll reserve judgement, but I like WSBPEL's > chances of providing substantial interoperable value for business > rules within web services and web apps running inside web services. > > Ciao, > Rex > > At 4:51 PM +0100 4/3/04, Paul Sumner Downey wrote: > >What seems to be lost in all this "flower blooming" is > >the notion of interoperability - the only reason to even > >look at Web services. > > > >No one is going to use *any* of these specs, regardless of > >how great they are or who publishes them if they don't > >interoperate - and i mean in product shipped by a wide > >variety of vendors, not just on paper or in some one-off > >fest held behind closed doors. > > > >Paul > > > >-- > >Paul Sumner Downey > >http://blog.whatfettle.com > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] > >Sent: 02 April 2004 21:04 > >To: xml-dev@l... DEV > >Subject: WS-Emperor naked? > > > > > >Would anyone here like to argue that the list found in > > > > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/04/01/WS-Mumble > > > >is coherent, or sensible, or viable, or generally that the parrot is > >not dead? > > > > -Tim > > > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > >manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > > > -- > Rex Brooks > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth > W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com > Email: rexb@s... > Tel: 510-849-2309 > Fax: By Request
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|