[sc34wg3] SAM issue: sam-conformance
Lars Marius Garshol
23 Apr 2003 10:29:04 +0200
* Lars Marius Garshol
| Note, I say SAM throughout to keep the discussion simple. I know
| there's some dissent about whether there should be separate SAM and RM
| specifications, but let's ignore that while discussing this. The
| conformance issue would play out in exactly the same way whether we
| were talking about RM, SAM, or RM+SAM.
* Sam Hunting
| For clarity: when the word "specification" is used, does that mean
| that there is an implicit proposal to publish either the SAM, the
| RM, or the SAM+RM as a Technical Specification?
Sam, we can't communicate like this. I can't spend all day explaining
every little word of every email I send. I would end up doing nothing
To answer your question: you can interpret the term as it is defined
by FOLDOC: "A document describing how some system should work."
As for RM and SAM they are *already* published as TSs.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >