SSA working draft

[Doug Tody]

Hi Phil -

The text in 3.3.3 is incorrect (it probably carried over from an
earlier version).  Only the "should" or "recommended" parameters need to
be implemented for a fully compliant service.  Consider implementing
some of the optional elements as well, if the associated information
is readily available for the data you are publishing.

	- Doug


On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Phillip Warner wrote:

>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:27:28 -0600 (MDT)
> Doug Tody <dtody at nrao.edu> wrote:
>
>  > What we would like to do between now and December is 1) invite comment
>  > on the specification,
>
> A first comment from me:
>
> In section 1.4 (beginning), it is stated:
>
>    Mandatory interface elements are indicated as must, recommended
>    interface elements as should, and optional interface elements as may
>    or simply "may" without the bold face font.
>
>
> And in section 1.4.1, it is stated:
>    A service is said to be fully compliant if, in addition to the
>    functionality required to be minimally compliant, the service
>    implements all the "should" (boldface) elements of the interface
>    defined herein.
>
>    A top of the line service will be fully compliant plus will
>    implement some of the optional ("may" provide) elements of the
>    interface....
>
>
> However, in section 3.3.3, it is stated:
>    The following additional parameters should or may be implemented by a
>    service; all are required by a fully compliant service....
>
>
> The paragraph in 3.3.3 is not consistent with the paragraphs in 1.4*.
> I.e., 3.3.3 requires me to implement all of the 'may' parameters in
> order to be "fully compliant".
>
> However, the paragraph in 1.4 and the second paragraph in the 1.4.1
> allows me to ignore the 'optional' or 'may' elements of the document in
> order to be fully compliant.
>
> This seems rather inconsistent.
>
> Phil
>