MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















emergency message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [emergency] Groups - ICS-201-draft0.2.xsd uploaded




From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "'R. Allen Wyke'" <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:40:31 -0600 






I am saying don't normatively associate any spec with any other spec 
unless you have to.  That's all.  Don't let me confuse you because 
I don't have time to look into ICS.  I was responding to Rick 
being uncomfortable with specifying XForms.

XForms is an explicit application language.  There are alternatives 
to implementing XForms so you should be uncomfortable with that choice.

Is the process specification meant to be executable or 
only an abstraction of a process that can be implemented 
differently?  Do you *need* a process specification or is 
it informative material provided to help other implementors?

Dare to do less in cases where doing more forces you to 
make choices for the implementors that they can better 
make for themselves.  Do more if the chances are good 
that without the extra work, the specification can't 
be implemented interoperably at all.  Be very certain 
about interoperation:  systems interoperate; data is 
portable.  So if you spec interoperations normatively 
you are designing the system, not the data.

len