Oops. When I work on these, I put the original and the
new together, and then delete the original. In this case, I deleted the new.
I had intended to say:
The SDD specification must support description of the changes
that will occur to the environment as a result of a deployment lifecycle operation.
I prefer the “will occur.. as a result” rather
than “will be in effect once.. complete” phrasing.
Regards,
Debra
From: Julia
McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:45
PM
To: Danielson, Debra J
Cc:
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.3
This looks like a suggestion to drop the second
sentence. But did you intend to reject the rewording of the first sentence and
stick with the "ability of the author" phrasing?
Instead of:
The SDD specification must support the ability for the author to describe the
changes that will occur to the environment as a result of a deployment
lifecycle operation.
How about this suggested wordsmithing (no meaning change intended):
2.3
The SDD specification must support declaration of environment changes that will
be in effect once a lifecycle operation is complete.
Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391
"Danielson,
Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
|
"Danielson,
Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com> 03/03/2006 12:35 PM |
|
This is a side effect of a confusing clause J. In the
second sentence, the “author” is the systems integrator aggregating
or customizing a solution, and looking to have the necessary information about
the changes to the environment while integrating (during the development
(integration) phase of the installation process).
That
said, this is a header level, and I think that the second part of the text is
addressed by 2.3.2.
So I
recommend that we reword 2.3 as:
The SDD specification must
support the ability for the author to describe the changes that will occur to
the environment as a result of a deployment lifecycle operation.
Regards,
Debra
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:50 PM
To: Robert Dickau; Julia McCarthy
Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.3
inline...
From: Robert Dickau [mailto:rdickau@macrovision.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:36 PM
To: Julia McCarthy;
Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.3
Agree with reworded first sentence, anyway, though of course with
"in affect" --> "in effect".
[
From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, 02 March 2006 11:13 am
To:
Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] 2.3
The
original:
2.3 Projected Changes to Environment: In addition to describing the content of
a solution package and the appropriate information required to install this
content, the SDD specification must support the ability for the author to
define information in order to describe the changes to the environment once the
package is installed. This information enables a provisioning application to
better manage the system resources.In addition, this information is required
during the integration phase of the
deployment lifecycle as the solution requires specific capabilities
to be deployed to complete the solution. Just knowing the payload of the
package is not adequate.
John's rewrite:
Option 1) 2.3 The SDD specification must support the ability for the author to
define information that describes the changes to the environment after a
deployment lifecycle operation is complete. The SDD specification must support
the ability for the author to define requirements that need to be met during
the integration phase of the deployment lifecycle operation.
Discussion:
I don't understand what the second sentence means. What is "the
integration phase"?
[
I also suggest the following wordsmithing for the first sentence of this
requirement:
2.3 The SDD specification must support declaration of environment changes that
will be in affect once a lifecycle operation is complete.
Julia McCarthy