[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Some points in the spec
Do we need an “Unknown” as part of “effectiveness?” That would mean every enumeration would have six possible values, which would add some symmetry (which
always seems right). One other minor semantic concern: As I think this through, “likelihood” seems like it is has a different connotation than “frequency” so the enumeration terms
seem “wrong” somehow. It seems like we could use the same enumeration values as most of the other enumeration types perhaps. (Maybe I’m not thinking about this right though) From: saf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:saf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Isaiadis, Stavros Hi all, As we approach a more polished version we would like to vote on, here’s some points to consider:
Likelihood {VeryFrequent, Frequent, Balanced, Infrequent, Rare, NotAvailable} Impact {VeryHigh, High, Moderate, Low, Minimal, Unknown} Urgency {VeryHigh, High, Moderate, Low, Minimal, Unknown} Risk {VeryHigh, High, Moderate, Low, Minimal, Unknown} Duration{VeryLong, Long, Moderate, Short, VeryShort, Unknown} Effectiveness {Effective, PartiallyEffective, BestEffort, Ineffective, Inconclusive}
More may come later. Thoughts? Thanks, Stavros This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender,
and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]