[ogsa-wg] [ogsa-wg | Roadmap 1.1 - 1788] Definition of "implement," "conformance," and "compliance"

Wed Apr 5 17:15:19 CDT 2006

A new artifact has been added:  1788

Submitted by:  Jem Treadwell
Submitted date:  2006-04-05 18:15:19

Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=815&aid=1788&group_id=42 (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=815&aid=1788&group_id=42)

Summary: Definition of "implement," "conformance," and "compliance"
Project: Open Grid Services Architecture
Tracker: Roadmap 1.1
Artifact ID: 1788
Category: <None>
Group: <None>
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Last Modified By: Jem Treadwell
Last Modified: 2006-04-05 18:15:19
Submitted By: Jem Treadwell
Submit Date: 2006-04-05 18:15:19
Assigned To: Jem Treadwell
File(s): <None>
Description: 
Mail received from Dave Snelling on 1/30/2006.

Hiro,

We should follow this up in OGSA, starting with dave B and Jem. I thought some distinction like this must exist. If Franco is right, we should probably adjust our definitions in both the OGSA and GGF roadmaps. We should track down the right legal definitions for the words just to make sure.

Thoughts?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Franco Travostino" <travos at nortel.com>
> Date: 17 January 2006 18:16:32 GMT
> To: "Hiro Kishimoto" <hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com>, "GFSG" 
> <gfsg at ggf.org>
> Subject: Re: [gfsg] definition of "implement," "conformance," and 
> "compliance."
>
>
>>  2.      A claim of conformance to a specification or profile is a 
>> statement  of intent to interoperate with other conformant 
>> implementations.
>> Two or
>>  more implementations may test their conformance by testing how well 
>> they  interoperate. A conformance claim mechanism as defined in the 
>> profile  should be used to communicate conformance.
> In this paragraph, I would use interoperability in lieu of 
> conformance. I'd remove the "statement of intent" and instead demand 
> successful execution of interoperability tests (whether these are 
> ad-hoc events or public bakeoffs).
>
>> 3.      A claim of compliance would imply acceptance by a set of OGSA  
>> Compliance Tests. At the time of writing no such tests exist.
>>  We may expect that OGSA compliance tests will be developed that 
>> define  the practical criteria that must be satisfied for a software 
>> system to  be called “OGSA-compliant.”  Until such a suite is 
>> available, claims of  OGSA compliance should not be made.
>  Here, I would replace compliance with conformance (assuming that 
> 'conformance' is no longer used in 2). Rationale: Compliance bears the 
> connotation of regulatory compliance, as it applies to processes 
> (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley) or complete engineering artifacts (e.g., a 
> car's emission gas test in my state), always implying that there are 
> clear, legally-binding accountabilities along the compliance process.
>
>  -franco
>
>
>
>
> At 11:21 AM 1/17/2006, Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  Per request during today's GFSG standard call, I will share  
>> definition of "implement," "conformance," and "compliance."
>>
>>  It is in the OGSA roadmap document (GFD.53) written by Dave Berry.
>>
>>  2.3     OGSA Branding
>>  Given the requirement for consistency across OGSA specifications and  
>> other documents, GGF defines in [OGSA-Related Naming Guidelines] the  
>> criteria to be used in determining whether to brand entities such as  
>> working groups and documents with an OGSA prefix.
>>  The OGSA normative documents are expected to be implemented by 
>> multiple  open-source software (OSS) projects and commercial software 
>> vendors.
>>  Authors of OGSA Software may claim one of three levels of agreement 
>> with  the OGSA normative documents:
>>
>>  1.      A claim to implement a specification or profile is a 
>> statement of  “best effort” to satisfy the requirements of the 
>> specification.
>> There
>>  are no test mechanisms to guarantee the correctness of the 
>> implementation.
>>
>>  2.      A claim of conformance to a specification or profile is a 
>> statement  of intent to interoperate with other conformant 
>> implementations.
>> Two or
>>  more implementations may test their conformance by testing how well 
>> they  interoperate. A conformance claim mechanism as defined in the 
>> profile  should be used to communicate conformance.
>>
>>  3.      A claim of compliance would imply acceptance by a set of 
>> OGSA  Compliance Tests. At the time of writing no such tests exist.
>>  We may expect that OGSA compliance tests will be developed that 
>> define  the practical criteria that must be satisfied for a software 
>> system to  be called “OGSA-compliant.”  Until such a suite is 
>> available, claims of  OGSA compliance should not be made.
>>
>>  --
>>  Hiro Kishimoto
>>
>>
-- 

Take care:

     Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
     Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
     Hayes Park Central
     Hayes End Road
     Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE

     +44-208-606-4649 (Office)
     +44-208-606-4539 (Fax)
     +44-7768-807526  (Mobile)

View the Roadmap 1.1 : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=815 (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=815)