Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WS-Emperor naked?
 Rex Brooks wrote: > CAP, for another example, which has not been tested > as thoroughly as WSRP, and is not a web service standard > although it can be implemented through a web service, > had public tests in September at the Global Homeland > Security Conference and again March 11, at a Congressional > demonstration, the ComCARE-sponsored Intreroperability > Now! workshop, holding the demonstration in the Rayburn > House Office Building that evening. Rex, if I were you, I wouldn't suggest that CAP [1] is an example of any thing good in the OASIS standards process. If anything, it should be an embarrassment to them. As you know, there are at least some (myself among the noisiest) who would say that CAP is one of the most poorly and ambiguously defined "standards" to be declared by any group in recent history. This standard includes: * An invalid XML Schema * Factual errors concerning the facilities it provides (i.e. it says it provides facilities for encryption and signatures, but does not) * Contains elements like <language> which are redundant with XML's xml:lang * Does not clearly identify all of its normative references * References out-of-date or obsolete normative documents * Departs from normal XML practice in many ways * Contains many ambiguously defined elements (like the name/value stuff, etc.) * Contains elements whose meanings can only be determined by processes external the spec itself. (like geocode, etc.) * Allows a range of date formats which is so broad that it is effectively not a definition at all. i.e. any of the gazillion formats provided by ISO8601 are "supported" by CAP. I could go on... Also, at least one of the three "Certifications" of "successful use" provided for CAP prior to voting was actually a third party report! i.e. The USGS certification makes reference to the CA EDIS group successfully using CAP but says nothing about USGS using it nor if USGS was a principle in the EDIS work. I contend now, as I have before, that I do not believe that any substantive interoperabilty could result from two independent development groups creating implementations without a great deal of inter-group discussion between the two. CAP is an exceptionally poorly written standard that could only have been passed by an organization like OASIS with very soft acceptance criteria. CAP wouldn't have stood a chance of acceptance by the IETF, ISO, W3C or most other standards groups. It is saddening and embarrassing that a standard which is as important as this one might be (it involves life-and-death situations) should be getting such shoddy treatment. bob wyman [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5666/emergency-CAP-1 .0.pdf 
|
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
|
|||||||||
