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@nortel.com> Date: 17 January 2006 18:16:32 GMT To: "Hiro Kishimoto" <hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com>, "GFSG" <gfsg@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)